Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 29 October.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Subsidised Employment (New Deal)

Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on the progress of the subsidised employment option of the new deal. [55090]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Like the rest of the new deal, that option has got off to an encouraging start. By the end of August, 7,000 young people were in jobs found through that option, in addition to the 16,000 in unsubsidised jobs.

Mr. Healey: I welcome that response. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the use of the new deal job option in Wales to create 70 new classroom assistants, and in the NHS in Scotland to create 270 new health service jobs, and what plans does he have to encourage similar initiatives in England?

Mr. Smith: Both those opportunities got off the ground only recently, and we are following them closely. The important thing, whether the job opportunities are in the public or the private sector, is that the processes work in terms of matching the young person with the right potential to the vacancy that meets the needs of the right employer. Whether people are in the classroom, or working in a hospital or a nursery, the important thing is that each one is the right person for the job.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware that, in the Cambridge travel-to-work area, by the end of September, only eight of the 667 persons eligible for the new deal had been placed through the subsidised employment option? Does he recognise the fact that, in some areas such as mine, it would be more relevant for resources to be directed towards, for example, those who are disabled, rather than being spent on promoting an option that is not being taken up or well used?

Mr. Smith: It would not be surprising to find that a relatively small number of people in the hon. Gentleman's area had moved through into employment at this stage of the programme. As the programme did not start throughout the country until April, we would expect the bulk of the intake still to be in the gateway. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the importance of provision for disabled people. I remind him that the new deal for young people provides for disabled people too, and, so far, the statistics that we have released showing the progress made by disabled people have been encouraging.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Over the summer, I took the opportunity to visit all three of the jobcentres in my constituency to see for myself how the new deal was progressing. I was impressed by what I saw. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the staff of the Employment Service on the care, diligence and purpose that they are showing in responding to the challenge that the new deal presents?

Mr. Smith: Indeed, I take pleasure in joining my hon. Friend in congratulating the staff of the Employment Service and the other partners who are working with us to make the new deal a success because, in order to succeed, it has to be a national crusade involving everybody in helping young and long-term unemployed people into jobs. There is no doubt that the commitment of Employment Service staff, the way in which quite a radical culture change is being driven through the service, and especially the dedication of the personal advisers, are greatly appreciated, both by young and long-term unemployed people, and by employers.

Mr. Damian Green: The degree of complacency that the Minister displays about the new deal is genuinely alarming. He now quotes figures showing that there are 7,000 subsidised jobs that would not have been there without the new deal, but, on 24 September, he was boasting that more than 25,000 employers had signed up to the new deal. Does he agree that, according to his own figures, there must be at least 18,000 firms that have not yet found a single placement for a new deal trainee? I think that there have been more press releases about the new deal than jobs created by it. Will the Minister tell us exactly how many firms that signed up to the new deal have failed to find even one suitable trainee? That would be one important measure of the failure of the scheme.

Mr. Smith: If there is any complacency around, it is among those on the Opposition Front Bench. Let us not forget—the Conservative party was so complacent about youth and long-term unemployment that there would have been no deal if it had had its way. That is the utmost in complacency. As to the progress of young people into


jobs, 23,000 moving into jobs and 16,000 into unsubsidised jobs is a creditable achievement for a programme that only rolled out nationally in April. That is 23,000 more than would have been achieved under the hon. Gentleman's policies.

Education Action Zones

Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement on the first 25 education action zones and on his plans for the next round of bids. [55091]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The first 12 education action zones started on 1 September and 13 more begin on 1 January. I expect to invite applications for more zones in the new year.

Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that, during the recess, the Conservative party said that it had left us a golden education legacy? If that were the case, presumably the private sector would have been involved in partnerships in education for some years before we came to power. Clearly, that is not the case. Is not the partnership between the private and public sectors crucial to the long-term stability and economy of this country and to its education, which is why education action zones are an important way forward for education authorities?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. There was no golden legacy in education—try telling the four out of 10 eleven-year-olds who were not even taught to read and write and use numbers effectively, and their parents, that there was. We shall change that. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of partnerships. One positive aspect of education action zones is the willingness with which industry, commerce and other partners have joined with schools, pupils and governors to raise standards for children. That is not just in the interests of schools—every person in this country has a vested interest in getting education right. The partnership being built in education action zones is one symbol of that.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, if the Government adopted a less ambivalent attitude to the participation of private companies in education action zones, companies would be more positive about joining in and less scared of participating?

Ms Morris: The hon. Lady refers to an ambivalent attitude—perhaps that is better than no attitude, which is what we had from the previous Government. I do not know what information the hon. Lady has read. BT, American Express and KPMG are partners in the action zone to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) referred. Kelloggs, American Express and Arthur Andersen are all top-rate companies which are joining with local companies to work with education action zones. People from industry are chairing education action zones and industry is represented on every single action zone forum. We are getting the partnership right, because it is not just words—there is action out there, and that partnership in action will raise standards. There is much to do because of the mess that the previous Government left us.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for establishing an education action zone in Halifax and

for recognising the problems that we faced. Will she join me in congratulating Anna White, her teachers, the governors, the local education authority and, most of all, the children for—in the words of Ofsted—having transformed the Ridings? I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who has shown such special interest in this school.

Ms Morris: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to welcome the education action zone in Halifax, which will build on what has gone on at the Ridings. Yesterday was a good news day for education and for the Ridings school, and not only because of what has happened there and because the life chances of a generation of children in Halifax will be better as a result of the work that has been done in the past few years. Perhaps even more important than that, it was a good day because of the lesson it teaches us—that any school can be turned round with good leadership, good teaching, and strong partnership involving Government and local authorities.
I wish to add my thanks, and the thanks of Ministers, to Anna White for the work that she has done. She deserves to be congratulated, and she will teach others to lead schools in equally good ways. I join my hon. Friend in her thanks to others, but I should also like to thank my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in arguing on behalf of the schools in Halifax. She has driven the matter forward, and I am sure that she took some pleasure in yesterday's announcement.

Mr. David Willetts: I begin by congratulating the Minister on her promotion. I believe that this is her first appearance in the House since she became Minister of State and I shall mention it even if her Back-Bench colleagues do not. Will she clarify what the waffle about partnership with the private sector means? Does she agree that, both in education action zones and councils such as Surrey or Hackney, it is acceptable for private firms to make a profit from contracts to run state schools if it is in the interests of pupils? If she gives a clear yes, she can be assured of Opposition support, but we need a clear answer to a simple question. Can private companies make money from running state schools, yes or no?

Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but he somewhat spoilt it after that. He may call it waffle, but when some of the nation's top companies go into schools, mentor children, offer learning opportunities and put in business expertise and resources, I would call it not waffle but giving our children better opportunities to achieve at a higher level. We are in favour of partnership. Schools and local authorities have always bought services from the private sector and some of those have included management consultancy. That is happening in one school in Hackney and it is being considered in Guildford—the authorities there will come to us when they have worked out their plans. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that buying services in the private sector does not amount to schools going private; it is not a change in the status of the schools. I very much regret that his present attitude to industry seems to be to question constantly and to undermine its efforts to enter partnerships with schools. He should put first not political point scoring but the interests of schools and children

Yvette Cooper: Will my hon. Friend consider broadening the focus of future


education action zones? In Castleford, the number of children getting five or more A to C GCSEs is 14 per cent. below the national average and the number staying on beyond 16 is a massive 40 per cent. below. Will she consider bids from places such as Castleford which concentrate on staying-on rates as well as raising standards?

Ms Morris: I apologise profusely to my hon. Friend for that. She is right and we shall certainly consider education action zones that decide on that as one of their targets. Continuing in education has never been as important for any generation as it is for this one, whether it be for academic or vocational courses. If children do not continue in education, they will miss out on the opportunities at the end of this century and the start of the next. I would very much welcome it if the area to which she referred and others made that one of their targets.

University for Industry

Mr. Phil Willis: When he expects the university for industry to be launched; what its projected budget is for each of the next three years; from where those funds will be provided; and if he will make a statement. [55092]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): The university for industry will be launched in 2000. The Government have committed £15 million for start-up costs and £40 million for the financial year 1999–2000. Future years funding will be announced in due course. Other moneys are being expended through pilot schemes under the European social fund Adapt programme.

Mr. Willis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. Our paths have been crossing for the past 20 years and it is perhaps appropriate that his first question this Question Time should be from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who educated both his sons. May I say how pleased we are that we at last have some information about the university for industry and a launch date? Will the money that the Minister has announced—about £40 million plus £6.25 million, which is for Learning Direct—come out of the higher education budget? If that is so, does it not mean that, by 2000, it will represent a 16.5 per cent. cut in the money announced in the comprehensive spending review?

Mr. Mudie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. My first question could not have come from a nicer person, although I might change my mind when I see who is to ask the second.
The university for industry prospectus was issued in March and should be available in the Library—if hon. Members want a copy, I shall certainly provide them with one. The money for the university is not from the higher education budget, but from a separate budget, which was negotiated under the comprehensive spending review. The £6.5 million for the direct line is additional to the £40 million.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Did my hon. Friend read in the Financial Times this week that
UK banks and building societies are on the verge of forming a national network of cash machines for the first time"?
Will he open negotiations with the banks and the lottery, which is also a national grid of sorts, as the downtime between midnight and 6 am when bank cash desks and the lottery are not used provides an opportunity to deliver the
university for industry on a different system?

Mr. Mudie: Although I am not directly responsible for the national grid for learning, I am aware that my hon. Friend is alive to technological complexities and interchangeability. His point will be taken on board.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Opposition would welcome the establishment as quickly as possible of the university for industry, which I hope will be a university for life and continuing learning, but would not it be more sensible to put into the scheme a large lump of the money that is being wasted on the new deal? Is the Minister aware that the number of people who came out of long-term unemployment in the most recent quarter is lower than the number of people who did so a year ago? He could pay for continuing learning by cutting some of the waste.

Mr. Mudie: The House will be pleased to see the conversion of Conservative Members to the new deal—for a year or so, we have been wondering why they were opposed to it. The university for industry has to date received £55 million, and further moneys are—depending on the corporate plan—to come, including £76 million from ESF Adapt programme for development, which is a considerable amount. The new deal has brought care, sympathy and action to our poorer communities—

Mr. Bruce: It is not working.

Mr. Mudie: It may not be working as well as Conservative Members want, but they did nothing in government—at least we have introduced the new deal.

School Transport

Dr. George Turner: What representations he has received on arrangements governing travel from home to school following publication of the Government's White Paper on the future of transport. [55093]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have received more than 100 letters from members of the public as a result of the White Paper, and we welcome people's views on how its aims can be put into practice. On 13 October, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I hosted the first meeting of the school travel advisory group, which was attended by a wide variety of interested organisations. The group will be making recommendations.

Dr. Turner: As a fellow Norfolk Member of Parliament, I am particularly pleased to give my


hon. Friend a warm welcome to his new role at the Dispatch Box. Will he acknowledge the many problems, especially in rural counties such as Norfolk, that arise from school transport? As a new member of the ministerial team, will he take a fresh look at some old issues?

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Dr. Turner: In doing so, will he consider the clear need for integration between the variety of methods of transport? For example, safe walking and safe cycling need to be examined with bussing to school. Moreover, will he use the Government initiative on raising standards—action zones—as a way forward in experimentation and innovation, so that new partnerships can produce better solutions for the next millennium?

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend. I am always a little too quick out of the traps. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on this issue. He is right to say that, in Norfolk and rural counties throughout the country, this is a major issue. A total of £380 million a year is spent by local education authorities on school transport. We are prepared to look afresh at those issues. That is why we had the meeting on 13 October to which I referred. It was a joint meeting between the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, of Health and for Education and Employment. We believe that the publication of the Government's White Paper on integrated transport strategy gives us a basis for addressing those issues in a proper way. In that context, we are prepared to look at experimental schemes to investigate ways in which we might approach the issue in particular localities.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: From Her Majesty's Opposition Benches, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as a junior Minister. I have seen him around Parliament for many years, although only latterly as a Member. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is unjust that, although free school transport is available, not all pupils in secondary education are entitled to it as of right? I am referring particularly to the decision of some local education authorities—I am thinking about one that is Labour controlled—not to allow sixth-formers in secondary schools in my constituency and throughout the county of Cheshire to take advantage of free school transport. Will the Minister look at that? Does he not think that the situation is unfair?

Mr. Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those words of congratulation. I do not think that the situation is unfair, but I acknowledge that the current legislative framework, which was established in 1944 and which has not been amended substantially since then, is very much out of time. That is why we need to look at all the issues across the whole range in the context of an integrated transport strategy. The group I mentioned earlier is looking at each of the issues carefully and will take account of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is extremely important to emphasise that the way to solve this problem is through integrated transport strategies of the type that the Government are pioneering and that we hope will deliver results in the future.

LEAs (Capital Projects)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What additional funding in constant value terms is now available to local education authorities for capital projects in 1998–99. [55094]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 1998–99, an additional £347 million has been made available to local education authorities for capital projects. That is over and above previous plans. Some £257 million has been made available through the new deal for schools programme; the remaining £90 million was announced by the Chancellor in his November 1997 Budget to reduce infant class sizes, eliminate the need for outside toilets and improve energy efficiency in schools.

Mr. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to achieving good school premises and to spending on them the money that is necessary after 18 years of neglect and financial starvation for local education authorities and schools? Will she confirm that the Government recognise in the comprehensive spending review and the doubling of money available over the next five years that the condition of school premises plays a vital part in the education of our children?

Ms Morris: I am delighted to do that. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in campaigning for capital resources for schools in his constituency. He will be delighted that his local authority has received £4 million in new deal for schools money—£2 million more than in the last full year of the Tory Government. Our children have a right to be educated in schools that are decent and fit for learning and our teachers have a right to work in that sort of environment. We started from an incredibly low base given the disastrous approach of the previous Government to the quality of our school buildings. However, we have begun to turn that around and we shall continue to do so in the rest of this Parliament.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: A school in my constituency may benefit from private capital being invested to improve its facilities if the Minister's previous answer were to be clarified. Does the Minister welcome the involvement of private sector firms, which may make a profit, in managing schools that need to be turned around? Does she agree that it would be discriminatory and unfounded to disallow such profit-making organisations from playing a part in improving standards in our schools? Does she agree that to deny them the right to play such a part would mean denying the schools the opportunity to make use of a range of talents and resources that they may need to help them?

Ms Morris: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the extra £2 million NDS funding that his local authority has received. Like the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), he preferred to try to score political points instead of considering the needs of children. If Surrey proposes plans to the Department, we shall consider them, as we have said that we shall, and as we have an obligation to do. I must say that, if the hon. Gentleman and his political colleagues in Surrey had paid half as much attention and given half as much passion to stopping their schools failing, we should not be in this position.

Common Funding Methodology

Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to establish a common funding methodology for 16 to 19-year-old students. [55095]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): None, but we are alive to the concerns of the issue and will watch closely the effects of three factors: first, the use that local education authorities make of the greater freedoms provided by the fair funding regulations; secondly, the effect of the extra money—£100 million this year and £255 million next year—that we have put into the further education sector; and, thirdly, how well and quickly the collaborative protocol agreed between the further education sector, the LEAs and the TEC National Council has an effect.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and add my congratulations on his appointment to the Front Bench. Will he meet representatives of the college sector to discuss the issue further? When will the latest version of the funding costs comparison report be published?

Mr. Mudie: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ten-minute Bill that he introduced yesterday on the subject. The document will be published as soon as possible and certainly this year. I am happy to meet him and any of his colleagues on any occasion to discuss the matter.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister with responsibility for lifelong learning accept congratulations from the Opposition on his appointment to an important position? Does he accept that the funding problem is by no means new and that successive Ministers, including myself, have wrestled with it and tried to mitigate the consequences? In the real world, the problems are caused not so much by the different funding streams or the fact that further education has traditionally been funded at the margin and schools have been funded on an average cost basis, but by the danger of destabilising sixth-form provision. Will the Minister neverless accept that we welcome the attempts to bring the various parties together? Anything that he can do to reduce the problems will be welcome.

Mr. Mudie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. The funding problem is difficult and we all wrestle with it. I do not wish to be political, but the problem was made worse by the era of competition between the sectors that was introduced by the previous Government and by the cuts that the further education sector experienced. Now that we have increased the money for further education, we might have a better atmosphere in which to work towards a solution.

Literacy Summer Schools

7. Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the value of the 1998 literacy summer schools; and if he will make a statement.[55096]

12. Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the initial results of the literacy summer schools. [55102]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): This year's summer schools are being evaluated by the National Foundation for Educational Research. The report will be received in November and I will place copies in the Library. A sample evaluation of 200 of this year's summer schools has shown substantial results. The summer schools were over-subscribed and many children could not get places. Half those evaluated showed an improvement in their reading of six months or more and that is a tremendous achievement for those summer schools and a tremendous fillip for the education of those children.

Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he knows, I had three summer schools in my constituency and I was impressed by the work that was done in them. Does he agree that they would not have been so successful but for the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff, both teaching and non-teaching? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate them on the time and effort that they put in, which has raised reading standards substantially for many children?

Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to commend the teaching and non-teaching staff and the parents who committed time to the summer schools. I can confirm that following the success of 557 literacy schools and 51 numeracy schools this year, we intend to double the number of summer schools next year. At least 1,200 will provide a link between primary and secondary schooling and an opportunity to show to anyone who doubts it the commitment of staff, parents and the community to raising standards in education.

Mr. Rammell: May I tell the Secretary of State about my experience of visiting the summer literacy schools in my constituency? The commitment and enthusiasm of the young people were heart warming. May I tell him too about my discussions with teachers about the Government's overall approach—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.

Mr. Rammell: I am getting to it, Madam Speaker. We are setting targets and using the literacy hour and summer schools to improve standards. Is not that the fundamental difference between what we are doing and the attitude of the previous Government, who, far too often, simply accepted educational under-performance as a fact of life?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. It is a credit to the schools of Harlow that five of the eight summer schools in Essex were held in that town. I commend to the House what my hon. Friend has said. It is important to keep reiterating that there were no summer schools when we took office. The Government are making a difference by


action rather than words and by investing where the Conservative Government merely wrung their hands. Take the example of the Ridings school, and the way in which it has been led by Anna White. I saw that school's improvement, and I was able to announce to parents and teachers that there would be a summer school when I was the first Minister ever to visit the school. The Ridings proves that if a commitment is made and resources are available, we can succeed.

Mrs. Theresa May: We are talking about the Government's targets for improving literacy skills. Is not the reality that the Government have been blown off course in meeting their targets for literacy and numeracy? The Secretary of State talks of action, not words, but this summer's results failed to meet up to the Government's words. Figures for key stage 2 results published earlier this month show that the Government have been blown off course on literacy because progress is not good enough to hit their targets. Furthermore, numeracy results show a fall rather than an improvement. The Government simply are not going to hit their targets. The Secretary of State is reported as saying that if the Government did not hit their targets, he would resign. Will he confirm that?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give myself a chance to do the job before I consider resigning. It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice that the policies carried through in the first year of the Labour Government reflected the total failure of the previous Government to tackle literacy and numeracy. They failed even to put in place a basic curriculum for teacher training in literacy and numeracy. They failed to put in place a literacy and numeracy strategy. We put a framework in place, which started in September. When our numeracy strategy is in place next year, we shall transform the abysmal results that are the miserable legacy that we inherited from the Conservatives into a triumph. Instead of six out of 10 children being able to read and write, eight out of 10—and eventually 10 out of 10—will be able to do so when they leave primary school.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Literacy summer schools must be seen in conjunction with the literacy hour in primary schools. Primaries in my constituency are very positive about that, and the kids enjoy it. The teachers are keen to feed back ideas about the literacy hour to strengthen the project in the light of their experiences. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a clear and manageable mechanism exists to allow schools to feed their experience to his Department?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, we are keen to do that. That is why the immediate survey of 200 has taken place and why the evaluation of the national foundation is taking place. We must learn what works best and, obviously, set aside those things that are not working. I should like to take this opportunity to say that when I visited one of the earlier numeracy schools in August, I found imaginative work, inspiring children to want to learn. I should like to see that transferred into the main curriculum programmes, so that children rejoice in learning, not just in the summer but throughout the whole of their school life.

EU Awareness

Mr. Howard Flight: What steps are being
taken to promote awareness of the EU in schools. [55097]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Awareness of the European Union in schools is promoted mainly through the study requirements for geography, history and modern languages laid down in the national curriculum.

Mr. Flight: The Minister will be aware that at the end of last year and the beginning of this year the Minister of State in the other place circulated a large pack to heads of all schools about the EU. I had letters from more than one head in my constituency complaining about this because, on looking through it, in fairness it was propaganda in favour of the euro and of the concept of a European state. In the light of the Neill report comments in particular, will the Minister undertake that the Government are careful that information only, not propaganda, is circulated?

Mr. Smith: We certainly need information and not propaganda, but I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's definition of which is which. Surely it is sensible that young people whose future and economic prosperity turn to a large extent on our links with European partners should know something about the EU and be properly equipped critically to discuss it. Of course we want balanced teaching on this as on other issues. I am confident that this can and should be left to the good sense of head teachers and classroom teachers acting under their statutory requirements.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many schools have improved their knowledge of the EU by establishing a connection with schools in Europe through using the world wide web and electronic mail? Does he consider that that is a useful way of acquiring information? Will he think about incorporating such collaborations within the national grid for learning?

Mr. Smith: I am sure that contact, whether through the internet or school exchanges, which are such a well-established feature of school life, has an enormous amount to contribute. I shall, indeed, pursue my hon. Friend's suggestion. Our young people deserve the opportunity to have accurate balanced information, as I was saying earlier, and to meet and exchange ideas with other young people, whether elsewhere in the European Union or in the world, and the internet provides that great opportunity.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Can the Minister confirm that the glossy children's comic produced by the European Commission and ludicrously entitled "The Raspberry Ice Cream War" has been pulped? In his reply, will he tell the House exactly what his consideration was in taking the decision to pulp that comic and how much it has cost the public purse to produce it?

Mr. Smith: As far as I am aware the comic has not been pulped, but is piled up in a warehouse somewhere


in Oxfordshire. It undoubtedly was an ill-judged and, in part, factually inaccurate publication. The EU Commission representative here, Mr. Geoffrey Martin, sensibly decided that it was inappropriate to distribute it. What happens to it is for the Commission to decide. The Commission might want to donate it to Oxfordshire's recycling effort or simply send it back to Brussels.

Truancy

Mr. Chris Pond: What evidence he has evaluated on links between truancy and unregulated term-time employment by children of school age. [55098]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has lead responsibility on employment of schoolchildren. A review of child employment law is currently being undertaken by officials from his Department, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Cabinet Office and the Health and Safety Executive. Children may not, of course, be employed to work during school hours.

Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Gravesham secondary school heads have written to local supermarkets asking why students preparing for GCSEs and A-levels have been required to work 20 hours a week, and no less, or have no job at all, and that other students work overnight in residential care homes? Given that 4 per cent. of children of school age admit to truanting on some occasions in order to undertake paid employment, does my right hon. Friend agree that dealing with truancy and excessive hours of employment for children of school age should be at the heart of our crusade to improve standards in education?

Mr. Smith: The circumstances that my hon. Friend reports concern me. I will draw them immediately to the attention of local education authorities, so that education welfare officers can look into them. I shall also draw them to the attention of the review to which I referred earlier. The causes of truancy and the things that people do when they are truanting cover much more than employment. There is limited evidence that employment is a major factor in truancy, but where young people are working excessive hours or in dangerous or unsuitable conditions, that has to be stopped. We will ensure that action is taken.

Mr. John Bercow: While I acknowledge that the employment of schoolchildren must be strictly regulated by law, I hope that the Minister agrees that such regulation should not prevent them from undertaking safe work that boosts their finances and those of their families. When the Government decided to prohibit the use of children on milk rounds at the request of the National Child Employment Network, did civil servants or the network bother to ask any children or their parents what benefit they gained and how they might suffer in the absence of those rounds?

Mr. Smith: The important thing here is that some common sense is brought to bear. We recognise the benefits that young people derive from a proper amount

of suitable work experience. There is not the evidence to show that sensible and appropriate work damages their educational accomplishment. I will certainly ensure that the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is considered. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Government are doing far more than our predecessors did to ensure that suitable preparation for work and sensible work experience forms part of the school experience for young people who can benefit from the opportunity to work.

New Deal

Dr. Desmond Turner: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in (a) pathfinder areas and (b) the rest of the country. [55100]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I am pleased with the early progress of the new deal. Already we have seen more than 145,000 young people invited to start on new deal; 32,000 of them are in the pathfinder areas; 23,000 have moved into jobs and 9,000 have moved into other options.

Dr. Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. I am sure that she is already aware that in my constituency and in the rest of Brighton we have a considerable problem of homelessness. Many of the homeless are young people who have been failed by the education system and have a bleak future in employment because, from a position of homelessness, access to employment is doubly difficult. Will my hon. Friend tell the House the ways in which the new deal will help such people?

Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I am aware of the problems that are faced by some young people in linking homelessness to joblessness. In Brighton it is a particular problem. We have funded a mediation project under the new deal as part of the gateway scheme so that we can provide counselling to young people who are homeless and put them into a secure environment. There are a number of projects around the country that link homelessness to joblessness. That is an integral part of a unique scheme under the new deal. The scheme is not about managing unemployment figures but about creating real and lasting opportunities for the young people of Britain today.

Mr. Graham Brady: Having had the pleasure of working with the hon. Lady on the Select Committee on Education, I, too, congratulate her on her appointment to the Front Bench. From that Committee's deliberations, she, like me, will be familiar with the provenance of the new deal, its having been introduced at a time when unemployment was falling sharply under the previous Government's policies. Now that the economic circumstances are somewhat different and growth forecasts have been revised sharply downwards, what plans do she and her colleagues have to revise the implementation of the new deal, in particular to take account of job losses in manufacturing in the north and the midlands?

Ms Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Despite his remarks, nearly 400,000 new jobs have


been created since the current Government took office. Furthermore, since the general election, youth unemployment has fallen by 15 per cent. and is about 13 per cent. less than it was in early 1979, when the Conservative Government first took office. The new deal's record of success speaks for itself.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. From my experience of working with her on the Select Committee and, previously, on the numerous child care projects with which she has been involved, I know that those working in the world of child care will welcome her appointment as much as I do.
May I bring to my hon. Friend's attention, and ask her to congratulate with me, Angela Ashman, who is 24 and is the 100th young person to go to Doncaster college under the Government's new deal? Five years ago, Angela began her training in hairdressing and, having stopped to begin her family, she is now taking a national vocational qualification in hairdressing. I quote her comments, printed in the Doncaster star:
Without New Deal there's no way I could have got back into training as I just couldn't afford the child care, but now that's been paid for it's great to be back at college.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister share my view that child care combined with education is the best way in which we can help young mothers, rather than telling them,
Get thee to a nunnery"?

Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. As she spoke, I was reminded of the occasion on which we visited a further education college together and looked in on a course in hairdressing. There were seven lone parents present, all of whom were returning to work through education and the facilities for child care that had been created. It is a vital part of the new deal, both generally and for lone parents, that we make affordable, accessible and high-quality child care available to those women who need it if they are to gain access to the labour market.

Mr. David Willetts: I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I thought that we were not going to hear from her this afternoon, but she has been allowed out on the new deal.
The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was remarkably complacent—as complacent as the answer we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that, throughout the summer, we have heard worrying announcements of factory closures and job losses; meanwhile, the Minister's Department is closing job clubs and putting all its effort into the new deal, which is a monumental irrelevance. It does absolutely nothing to help the people who are currently losing their jobs thanks to the Government's economic policies. Why will the Government not treat all unemployed people fairly and shift some resources towards the people who are losing jobs because of the Government's policies?

Ms Hodge: I do hate to blur with simple facts the rather boring and tedious political rhetoric that we are hearing

from Conservative Members. The simple facts are that, under our new deal, at this very early stage, more than 23,000 young people who would otherwise have been unemployed are now in work. We are extending that new deal to those who are long-term unemployed—those who have been unemployed for two years. From November, we are piloting the new deal for those who have been unemployed for between 12 and 18 months. That is the proper way to tackle unemployment—with a scheme that is not about massaging unemployment figures, but about creating real opportunities with the gateway and ensuring that we improve employability so that people can go into real jobs.

Mr. Roy Beggs: On behalf of my colleagues, I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion. I welcome the fact that the Government have allocated £140 million to Northern Ireland over the next five years for the new deal. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging those who have been disadvantaged to increase their qualifications and upgrade their skills so that they can benefit from the new employment opportunities being created in Northern Ireland?

Ms Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support for the innovative and important new deal introduced by the Government. This is the first time that we have tried to link job opportunities and schemes to training and employment. We know that good skills, education and qualifications matter for the wealth of Britain, so the new deal is a vital scheme which should be supported across the House.

Social Exclusion Unit

Ms Dari Taylor: If he will make a statement on the latest report from the social exclusion unit and on what steps he has taken to tackle the problems faced by disaffected young people. [55101]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I welcome the social exclusion unit's report, "Bringing Britain Together: A Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal", which is linked to the earlier report on truancy and exclusion. We are setting a target for a reduction of one third in truancy and exclusion over the next three years. During that time we shall invest £493 million to tackle head on the tragedy of exclusion and truancy. We shall use a cross-departmental approach to overcome disadvantages in our most deprived neighbourhoods and we shall invest the resources that the Conservative party denied for so many years.

Ms Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to be successful in including young people, local partnerships and local authorities must be involved in all policies? Does he agree also that successfully helping young people will be the test of our policy of including the excluded? Are local authorities to be given further advice on funding sixth form education?

Mr. Blunkett: On the first two questions, it is absolutely clear that without a partnership approach that


includes every agency and contributor, we cannot succeed. That is why the schools plus team, which was set up following the renewal report, and our advice on best practice in avoiding exclusion and truancy must combine to spread the excellence that already exists. In addition, the new start programme will target 14 to 19-year-olds.
It is clear that children who are excluded and who truant from school are excluded from life. They cannot get a job; they often find themselves in difficulty with the law, and they find themselves alienated from society. A comprehensive approach to post-16 education by further education and sixth form colleges, which provides work-based training and work in the community, is vital in ensuring that everyone is pulling in the same direction.

Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the new members of the Front-Bench team and welcome many of the Secretary of State's proposals for tackling the disaffected. Does he accept that disaffected young people are often those who achieve the least academically? Will he therefore explain to the House why, if targets are so important to him, there are no targets in literacy for the bottom 20 per cent. of pupils, which means that teachers tend to concentrate on the rest? Will not that lead to

further disaffection? Is there not already a growing gap between the bottom 20 per cent. of pupils and the rest, which is a recipe for disaster?

Mr. Blunkett: In view of the congratulations coming from all sides to half of my team, I think that I should congratulate them myself.
We have a difficulty in that every time we set new targets, the Liberal Democrats say that we are overloading teachers and causing them aggravation. I shall be delighted to set targets in the not too distant future to avoid having children leaving school with no qualifications. Last year 45,000 young people left school without a single qualification to their name. Regrettably, the vast majority of children in care leave school without qualifications. We shall do something about that. However, a solution will be achieved not simply by setting a target but by putting in place the necessary support mechanisms to ensure that all children are well educated.
Recent GCSE results show an improvement in terms of those gaining an A to G qualification or the equivalent, and a decrease in the number of pupils who leave school with no qualifications. I think that we should take some pride in those results and spread best practice so that we can do even better next year.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 OCTOBER—Opposition Day
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the Economy followed by a debate on Agriculture and the Food Industry. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 27 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Motion relating to the Working Time Regulations
WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 29 OCTOBER—Debate on Quarantine for Pets on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 30 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Security and Intelligence Agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 4 November there will be a debate on the Social Action Programme 1998–2000 in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 4 November:
European Standing Committee B:—Relevant European Community Document: 8328/98, Social Action Programme; Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxx (1997–98].
It may be convenient for the House if I announce now that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday 24 November.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for providing the business for the first week. I understand the current uncertainties, but I hope that she plans to revert to announcing two weeks' business in advance so that hon. Members may plan ahead.
Is it not astonishing that, although there is minimal pressure on parliamentary time, the Government have not found time for a full day's debate on the economy? While we may disagree about the reasons for the economic downturn confronting us, the recession concerns our constituents and is the subject of intense debate in the newspapers. It should be debated in the House, and the Government should not rely on Opposition days for debating that key subject. Is that not further evidence of the Government's intention to sideline and marginalise this Chamber?
After Parliament rose for the recess, we saw the publication of the Neill committee's report on the funding of political parties. It is a radical report with wide implications for the political process, and there are rumours that the Government plan to cherry-pick it. Can the right hon. Lady find time to debate the Neill committee report in the overspill? We are expecting the publication next week of the Jenkins report commissioned by the Government. On what day next week does the right hon. Lady expect its publication? Will the Government make a statement about that report? The House will expect an early debate on the report and the Government's response to it.
We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for announcing the date of the state opening of Parliament. Can she confirm when she plans to prorogue the House? In view of the shifting foreign affairs situation in Kosovo and elsewhere, is there any prospect of a debate on foreign affairs?
Finally, the right hon. Lady may know that an important international conference will be held in Buenos Aires from 2 to 12 November following up the Kyoto summit. It would be helpful if the Government could hold a debate before the conference starts so that hon. Members may give the Government the benefit of their views on those issues.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall endeavour to cover all the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. On the economy, the House will be very well aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he will be making his pre-Budget statement on 3 November. The House will also be well aware that this is when the Government set out in full, with all the latest information, their current view of the economy. In that sense, it is faintly ludicrous to accuse the Government of not being prepared to come to the House and focus on those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Neill and Jenkins reports. I would normally hope to adopt an attitude of sweet reason in our weekly exchanges, but I find it extraordinary that the Opposition are already trying to make something of the Neill report and accusing the Government of trying to cherry-pick it. As the Conservatives are supposed to have given undertakings to implement some of the recommendations on publishing political party accounts and have singularly failed to do so, I do not think that it lies with them to accuse anyone of cherry-picking the Neill report. It is an extensive report. We were pleased that many of its recommendations chime in with our own evidence, but it goes far wider—

Sir George Young: Not all.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Not all". As far as I can recall, the report does not chime in with any of the recommendations made by the Opposition. Indeed, they refused point blank to allow Neill even to consider party political funding, so it seems quite farcical for them to pretend that they have the high ground on this matter. Of course we have every intention that there should be proper debate and consideration of the Neill report. When we have had a better chance to consider its wide range of recommendations and proposals, no doubt the matter will return in some form.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me when I expected the Jenkins report. I am afraid that is not immediately fresh in my mind. It may be Thursday next week, but I cannot be absolutely categorical. Again, we do not yet have the report, but of course I recognise that it is a matter in which there is passionate interest on both sides of the House and I am confident that it will come before the House at some stage.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me when the House may prorogue. I cannot give him a date, but I anticipate that it is likely to be late in the week preceding the state opening. I have taken note of his request for a debate on matters raised in the aftermath of Kyoto and of the dates that he gave for the conference in Buenos Aires. He also asked me about the prospect of a discussion on Kosovo. He will be aware, I am sure, that Foreign and Commonwealth questions are top next Tuesday.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the House be kept informed of developments over the Pinochet case? Is it not important that the due processes of law apply to all criminals, including a former murderous, criminal dictator and torturer such as Pinochet? Would it not have been far better had Lady Thatcher realised that and kept her mouth shut?

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that we should recognise the key importance of due processes of law with regard to all. He has asked for an assurance that the House will be kept informed. Knowing his considerable experience in commenting on such matters, I am confident that he will be well aware of the quasi-judicial role occupied by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Obviously, I will bear in mind his request, consistent with that responsibility.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I endorse the request for debates, when time can be found, on the Neill and Jenkins reports as well as Kosovo? There is a general feeling in the House that simply answering questions is not a sufficient response to that problem.
Will the Leader of the House undertake an urgent investigation and report back to the House as soon as possible on the terms of reference and the criteria for editing the parliamentary channel? I do not know whether she is aware that the BBC has now taken responsibility for the channel. I am given to understand, and I now have some evidence, that that has put the BBC in a rather invidious position. She may be aware that yesterday, I initiated a debate in the House on the reporting of Parliament by the BBC, which is a matter of considerable concern, and I was told afterwards by an hon. Gentleman that the BBC, in its strapline that runs across the bottom of the picture, was interpolating its own comments on our debate. This is a particularly invidious situation. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that it is worth looking at the terms of reference of the BBC when it undertakes the reporting of Parliament on our behalf.
This afternoon, I viewed the tape of that debate. My speeches and those of other hon. Members appear with the BBC's own comments on the debate across the bottom of the picture. This may be a special case, but I think the Leader of the House will agree that in such circumstances, it could be invidious for the BBC to comment in that way, and possibly extremely misleading.

Mrs. Beckett: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises was not familiar to me. I am sure that many hon. Members

will share his concern. I take his point that he would wish the House to consider the matter at some stage, and I shall bear that in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: After all the statements have been made about General Pinochet, and if all else fails, may I offer a decent suggestion? The official solicitor should gently take him by the hand to Mrs. Thatcher's flat, and force him to live there for the next six months.

Hon. Members: Cruel and unusual punishment.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot possibly comment.

Mr. Peter Brooke: As I have read that the Government are in favour of the main thrust of the Neill report, which contained 100 recommendations, can the Leader of the House tell us how many recommendations fall under what I assume is the lesser thrust?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I did not follow the end of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I can tell him, as I said a few moments ago, that the Neill report is more wide-ranging than any of us had anticipated, and the Government will want to—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: We have accepted all the recommendations.

Mrs. Beckett: In that case, I look forward with eager anticipation to the publication of the Conservative party' s accounts.

Mr. Stuart Bell: May I build on the response that the President of the Council gave to the shadow Leader of the House, and tell my right hon. Friend and the House that the Jenkins report will be published on Thursday morning with a press conference at the Institute
of Directors, which seems entirely appropriate? In the light of my right hon. Friend's comments on sweet reasonableness, may I ask her to ask the Prime Minister to come to the House on Thursday afternoon and give us a statement on the Jenkins commission's report and recommendations, and to follow that with an early debate, given the report's constitutional implications and importance for the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the passionate interest that my hon. Friend, along with many other hon. Members, takes in the matter. I am confident that when the Jenkins report has been published, time will be found to air the issues that it raises, but I am not keen to speculate on when.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government of Libya have now accepted in writing the arrangements for a trial in The Hague of the Lockerbie suspects, subject to three amendments, and as the British and American Governments have said that there can be no amendments, is it not rather insulting to the House of Commons that the order providing for the trial and the expenditure, No. 2251, is not subject to debate or consideration by the House or any Committee? Would it not be fairer to democracy and to the relatives of those


who lost their lives if the Government would arrange a debate for next week, to allow the House to say whether it approves of the Government's tough line, or whether it thinks that there was some merit in making concessions on the three amendments proposed by the Libyan Government?

Mrs. Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says in requesting time to be found to raise the matter in the House. He will be aware that it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, when he will no doubt look for an opportunity to raise the matter.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As I am sure the Leader of the House knows, the Department of Social Security today announced the outcome of the annual review of the cold weather payments scheme. The problem still exists of postal areas being covered by different meteorological offices. In my constituency I have a massive problem with two postcode areas that are dealt with from Leeds, rather than from Nottinghamshire. The question of sorting out which meteorological offices should be used is one that should be aired in the House, bearing in mind that we shall all be receiving massive representations from our constituents.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that warning. He may be right to say that we shall receive heavy correspondence on the matter and that the issue will be raised in the House. I am aware that the way in which these matters are settled has long been an issue of controversy. The tabling of Social Security questions will be on Monday 2 November. That will give hon. Members an opportunity to try to raise the issue. It remains the position that as a result of the early actions that the Government took on coming into office, all pensioners receive help with their heating bills in a way that was not previously the case. That at least marginally alleviates the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I reinforce the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a debate on foreign affairs? Would not such a debate be particularly apposite before the visit next week of President Menem of Argentina—a visit whose purpose is to effect a full reconciliation between our two countries—in that it would give an opportunity for the Government to explain their policies towards countries that have had civil strife, such as Argentina, where more people died than in Chile? Could not the occasion be used also to remind the House how General Secretary Honecker of East Germany, whose regime was responsible for the deaths of scores of people on the Berlin wall, was received in Chile to pass his declining years with his daughter—with his family? Could not appropriate conclusions be drawn?

Mrs. Beckett: I hear the hon. Gentleman's support for a debate on foreign affairs. We had a statement on foreign affairs on Monday of this week and there will be Foreign Office questions next week. I fear that I do not see time for a foreign affairs debate in the near future.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on early-day motion 1677?
[That this House is gravely concerned at evidence of the over prescription of damaging and addictive medicinal drugs in women's prisons; believes that powerful medicinal drugs prescribed to the late Emma Humphries and one other woman may have caused their premature deaths; is alarmed by the claims made by a distinguished author that neuroleptic drugs are routinely prescribed to young women prisoners who mutilate themselves, and that medicinal drugs are used as pacifiers which move prisoners from non-addictive illegal drug use to highly addictive medicinal drug use; and calls for a full inquiry into all drug use in women's prisons.]
The motion deals with the serious and tragic case of two young women who died at a very early age from, according to the families' belief, addictions to medicinal drugs that they acquired in prison. The claim is being made that there is vast over-prescription of Largactil and other neuroleptics in our prisons, and that Largactil is being used as a pacifier and as a means to enable prison officers to meet their performance targets by weaning prisoners, especially women prisoners, off non-addictive, illegal drugs on to highly addictive and dangerous legal drugs. The case has been made eloquently in a recent book by Angela Devlin entitled "Invisible Women".
The Home Office of this Government and that of the previous Government have refused to give details of prescribing neuroleptics in women's prisons. Is it not right that we should have a debate to ensure that the plight of these defenceless women is made visible?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in these matters and of his concern about issues such as the welfare of prisoners. I can only say to him that there will be Home Office questions this coming Monday, which may provide an opportunity to raise the matter to which he has referred. I cannot promise him time for a debate in the very near future.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House accept that she has perhaps inadvertently given the best possible reason for an urgent debate on the Neill report? The Leader has wriggled obviously about the Government's response to the report, which they set up with much posturing and wringing of hands, allegedly taking the moral high ground. How is it that the right hon. Lady finds it so difficult, even at this stage, to say, "We don't need a debate on the report because we, the Government, accept every proposed measure in it", as the Opposition have done?
Surely we need an opportunity for the Leader of the House and others on the Government Benches to explain why they are so embarrassed about the Neill report and why they will not accept some of the key recommendations, not least those on referendums, which the Government are obviously hell bent on using as a twisted device to massage public opinion for their own needs.

Mrs. Beckett: I have seldom heard such claptrap at any Question Time or debate. Labour asked the Neill committee to report on these matters against the opposition of the Conservative party. We have implemented all the things that we could voluntarily


implement and that were in our evidence to the committee already. The Conservative party claims to accept all the recommendations, but has not lifted a finger to implement any of them. As there are wide recommendations on referendums that require careful consideration, it is sensible for the Government to weigh these matters and then come to the House with their response. As for the notion that the Conservatives have attained the moral high ground by saying that they accept in full all the recommendations, the fact that they have not implemented any of the ones that they could have implemented shows that they would not know the moral high ground if they saw it.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend seen the words attributed to the Prime Minister this week on the European Union and defence? If she has, could she explain in greater detail than was given in the press what he had in mind on that relationship? If she cannot do that now, could she encourage him to come to the House to flesh out his ideas so that ordinary Members of Parliament can hear his views, and let him know ours, about any possible relationship between the European Union and defence?

Mrs. Beckett: I speak from memory, but I think this matter might have been raised with the Prime Minister yesterday. I understand and respect my hon. Friend's concerns. The Prime Minister was saying that we want some imaginative thinking on how we can enhance the European contribution to NATO. There is no suggestion, and never has been, that he or the Government wish to undermine NATO, which is the cornerstone of our defence and security policy. It has always been made clear that we would not support, for example, a standing European army. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members wish to explore the matter further, there will be an opportunity next Wednesday in the debate on the Army.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider and find time for an early debate on the deteriorating state of the economy—that debate to be initiated by the Prime Minister? Is she aware that despite his glib evasions yesterday and the truly gut-wrenching complacency of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the European Commission predicts that Britain will slump to the bottom of the European growth table next year? Does she accept that as the Prime Minister's policies of tax, waste and regulate are responsible for, once again, making Britain the sick man of Europe, he is responsible for coming to the Floor of the House to debate the possible cures for the sickness that he has caused?

Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on trumping the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in the deleteriousness league. I agree with what I think was the underlying thrust of the hon. Gentleman's observations—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did an excellent job yesterday of advancing the Government's case on the handling of the economy, although I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman did not like it one little bit.

Mr. Bercow: Glib evasions.

Mrs. Beckett: They were not glib evasions. The problem for the Conservatives is that they were statistics,

which are much harder for them to deal with, especially as they seem not to understand them. The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friends of complacency. That is not the case. It is clear that they, like the whole Government, recognise the difficulties that some sections of the economy face, but we also recognise how far-fetched are the suggestions of the Conservative party that all the problems arose only during our tenure of office. The pre-Budget statement putting all these matters in context will be made on 3 November and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to that. We certainly are.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a welcome renaissance of the British film industry in recent times? Does she recall that in March, a review co-chaired by Stewart Till of Polygram, called "A Bigger Picture", met with fairly widespread approval? I think that it was the Financial Times that said that it was the most comprehensive review of the British film industry for 30 years. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give us some support in ensuring that such an important aspect of Britain's creative industries is given a fair wind, and a debate on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know of his strong support for the film industry, and I appreciate his welcome for the review that he mentioned. He will know of the strong support being given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and about his widespread consultations on how we can advance the future of the film industry, whose importance is recognised throughout the House. I shall certainly bear my right hon. Friend's observation in mind. The day for tabling questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is next Monday.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I follow the question asked by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who asked whether the Prime Minister would be able to answer questions about his view on what defence co-operation not covered by present arrangements should take place in Europe? Hearing other Ministers speak in Wednesday's debate would not be sufficient.
We are responding to a story that came out through a briefing, so could the Government give us an open register of official briefings to journalists by Ministers and for the Prime Minister, so that the rest of us would know what was said in private? Could we also have a register of the Philip Gould-type groups consulted by the Government and paid for with taxpayers' money, so that we can understand what the Government are being told by other people, in the same way that we hope that the Government will also pay attention to what we say in the Chamber?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed, the Prime Minister comes here every week for half an hour of Question Time in which many such matters can be raised. I am sure that should the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends catch your eye, Madam Speaker, it will be possible for them to raise such issues directly with the Prime Minister. That will certainly meet the point that the hon. Gentleman made. As for openness, as we are a Government who hold open briefings to the Lobby by the Prime Minister's official


spokesman, and who are committed to introducing proposals for freedom of information, we need no lectures from the Opposition on that subject.

Ms Gisela Stuart: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the grave situation at Longbridge, next to my constituency. Many jobs are threatened there, and although I agree with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the decision is primarily one for Rover, does not the present situation show us that the previous Government left us with deep structural damage to our industrial base? Our supply chain base is weakened and we lack a sufficiently skilled work force to provide the car industry with the skills that it needs. Can space be found in the near future for a debate on how the regional development agencies, in particular, could take a strategic position in developing our supply chain base, thus helping the people at Longbridge in connection with jobs in the car industry, whether with Rover or with one of the other manufacturers?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. It is clear that the difficulties being experienced at Longbridge have been long in the making. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met representatives of the company this morning and had a useful discussion. The issues at Longbridge include short-term costs and long-term investment decisions. My hon. Friend is right to say that the present position casts light not only on the reality of our economic inheritance from the Conservatives, but on the need for work such as that of the regional development agencies. I shall bear in mind her view that hon. Members might like to debate the matter in future.

Mr. Howard Flight: It is a long time since we heard announcements about the Food Standards Agency. In view of the depression facing agriculture and the concern of farmers in particular that consumers should know where the food they buy in the shops is produced geographically—and that it has met the standards and quality of production required in this country and represented by the Food Advisory Board standards—might the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the issue of food standard labelling?

Mrs. Beckett: There will be a debate on agriculture on Monday, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in the statement. I hear and welcome his support for greater information to be provided about food, and his support for food standards. It is unfortunate that the setting up of an agency was not a step that the Conservative Government felt inclined to take. However, I always welcome converts and I am glad to hear of his support. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but I can promise him that the Government intend to press on with the matter.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon.
Friend consider having a debate on science and technology policy in the near future, particularly since the comprehensive spending review allocated a very welcome £1.1 billion to new initiatives? However, the House has

not had an opportunity to consider the philosophy under which those funds should be allocated and distributed. In particular, I am worried by the possibility that, because our partner in the initiative is Wellcome, there might be too much of an emphasis on biochemistry or medicinal science and insufficient emphasis on, say, physics, mathematics or chemical sciences. I wish to make a specific plea to the Government to consider aerospace and space technology, particularly in view of the Beagle 2 project. We should make a representation to the European Space Agency before 30 October as to whether we are willing in principle to commit £25 million to support the Mars 2003 project. May we have an early debate on science and technology policy?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on those matters, although I recognise his great interest in the issues. Trade and Industry questions will take place on Thursday. I note also the points he makes about the importance of the aerospace industry—a view he knows that I share—and his concerns about science policy. Some of the boundaries in the handling of and approach to the different scientific disciplines that he identifies are becoming rather blurred these days. I share his view that these are matters of great importance. I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future, but I will bear his views in mind.

Mr. Simon Burns: I seek clarification from the Leader of the House on her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), concerning his request for a debate on the Buenos Aires conference on climate change. When the right hon. Lady said that she had "taken note" of my right hon. Friend's request, did she mean that she had taken note because he asked the question and would do no more, or that she had taken note, would go away and would come up with the answer that the House can debate the question—preferably before the start of the conference, but certainly before we prorogue?

Mrs. Beckett: My answer means what it has always meant when the Leader of the House has said it under any previous Government.

Mr. John Cryer: I wish to support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for an early statement and debate on the Jenkins commission. If the reports are correct—and I think they are likely to be—that Jenkins has opted for the additional member system, it will mean not only that he will be trying to perpetrate an attack on democratic accountability, but that he will have broken the parameters of the investigation. He would have known that if he had read the submission to his commission from the first-past-the-post group, of which I am a member. Sadly, it seems that he was unable to stay off the claret long enough to read it.

Mrs. Beckett: I take that to be a call for a debate on the Jenkins commission report. I shall certainly bear it in mind when the report has been received.

Mr. Julian Brazier: May I also call for an early debate on the Jenkins report? Lord Jenkins was generous enough to spare a full hour during his year


researching it to talk to Members of Parliament here. As one colleague of the right hon. Lady pointed out, we all feel terribly humble before him because most of us have fought for only one political party. None the less, it would be nice if the place that is principally affected by his report had an opportunity to debate his findings.

Mrs. Beckett: What is already clear is that such a debate would certainly be lively.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the Leader of the House clarify exactly what she meant by taking note of the request by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for a debate on climate change before the meeting in Buenos Aires? Will she simply say yes or no to whether the Government take the issue seriously and whether they will find Government time for a debate on it?

Mrs. Beckett: It may save the hon. Gentleman much time and trouble in the future if he bears in mind that usually what I say is what I really mean. When I said that I would take note of the views of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), that is precisely what I meant.

Mr. Bercow: What does that mean?

Mrs. Beckett: It means that I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's views. It is quite straightforward. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made a proposal, gave the date of a particular conference and asked for a debate. I shall consider that request and, if it is possible to grant it, no doubt I will do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman attends business questions often enough to know that there are many requests for debates. The whole purpose is that Members should have the opportunity to
ask or a debate. I cannot say now what debates will be granted.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Prime Minister's press office is not trying to influence the present debate about the time of the Independent Television News programme "News at Ten", which was widely discussed by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport this morning and in the press? Does she agree that the issue warrants a debate without the influence of Alastair Campbell?

Mrs. Beckett: I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in the apprehension upon which that question was based.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the International Monetary Fund on 6 October that growth in the United Kingdom economy next year would be cut by 50 per cent., is not it astonishing that hon. Members have to wait a month before the issue can be debated in full and a month before they are told the Government's actual forecast for 1999? How can hon. Members

effectively scrutinise public finances given that the figures in the Blue Book are now completely meaningless, misleading and wrong?

Mrs. Beckett: Few Governments have more experience of figures being misleading and wrong than the Conservatives when they were in power. First, the House did not sit until this Monday. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made it plain that he will be making his pre-Budget statement in about 10 days. That is when the latest information will be available. I am confident that the House awaits it with eager anticipation and, after what has been said today, I feel sure that there will be a full attendance for it.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the statement made by the chief constable of Greater Manchester on Monday that, as a result of a shortfall in funding induced by the comprehensive spending review, there will be a complete ban on recruitment to the police service there from now on? As a result, 400 posts will be lost in the next 12 months. Does she understand the great concern throughout Greater Manchester and certainly in my constituency? Will she ask the Home Secretary to explain to the House the impact of the comprehensive spending review on police services throughout the country and, in particular, in Greater Manchester, so hat I can tell my constituents exactly what the future of policing in the conurbation is to be?

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the statement by the chief constable. The hon. Gentleman asked me to ask the Home Secretary to come to the House to deal with the matter, and my right hon. Friend will, of course, be here for Question Time on Monday.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her reply to the request by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a debate on foreign affairs was disappointing, as were her replies to hon. Members who raised a certain recent subject? Will she give a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government had no political involvement in the recent arrest of a senator from a friendly foreign democracy? Will she ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm to the House next week that the aim of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy is not to interfere in the internal arrangements of other democratic states, any more than their wish is to have other countries interfere in whatever arrangements we deem it appropriate to make in Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Beckett: The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises have been debated—or at least generally discussed in public. He will be aware of the view that I have expressed that some of these more sensitive issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I readily assure him that the matter is not being handled politically; we have taken the view from the outset that it is a legal matter, which is how it has been and continues to be handled.

Housing

[Relevant documents: Tenth report from the Environment, Transport and
Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Housing (HC 495-I) and
the Government's response thereto (Cm 4080).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Madam Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members for self-restraint. I know that a number of hon. Members are interested and want to take part in the debates, but I am not able to impose a time limit as the debates are being introduced by Back Benchers and I do not want the limit to apply to them. I simply appeal for self-restraint.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to debate our housing report and the Government's response to it. I place on record the Committee's thanks to our Clerk and specialist adviser and to our advisers Richard Bate, Peter Chapman and Dr. Christine Whitehead, who gave us so much help in preparing our report. I also thank all those who sent in written evidence and those who came before the Committee to answer our questions—we are extremely grateful to them all. Finally, I thank all the members of the Committee, who worked so hard, and I apologise to the House for the fact that my co-Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is unable to be here today—she is on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation.
Our inquiry arose out of the previous Government's projection that an extra 4.4 million households would have to be catered for over the next 15 years or so, which represents an increase on the previous projections of about 1 million—that was the key to our inquiry. I was surprised that very few of the people who sent in evidence challenged those figures, even though they raised many other problems. One reason was that there was little detail on how those projections were arrived at. One of the most pleasing aspects of the Government's response was the promise that the next set of projections would include much more detail on how the figures are arrived at, so that there can be much more discussion about whether they are realistic.
If the projections are wrong, there will clearly be problems. If too many households are projected, rows of houses in parts of the country may contain empty properties, and it is extremely depressing to live in a road where some houses are uncared for and untended. It is important that we do not over-provide or over-provide in particular parts of the country.
Equally, it is important that we do not under-provide. If we do, it is almost certain that house prices will increase, which will mean that many people cannot afford to buy a house, giving rise to an increase in the demand for social housing. Ensuring that the projections are right and meeting those projections are extremely important.
The projections show that the extra dwellings that will be needed will be for young single people, for people in middle age who are likely to be living on their own—perhaps through divorce—and, of course, for the increasing number of elderly people.
One of the key questions is where those dwellings should go. There has been a great deal of argument about how many of them can go on to what are crudely called brown-field sites—areas of land that have been used previously. First, the Government suggested about 60 per cent, but the Opposition have looked for a rather higher figure than that. There was evidence to the Select Committee that, in some parts of the country, it would be easy to reach a higher target than 60 per cent.
I believe that we should be a little cautious about making predictions until we have much better information. One of the most useful things will be Lord Rogers's task force, which will carry out the compilation of a database across the country so that we know how much brown-field land there is. That is fundamental. Until we know how much land there is, we cannot prove how realistic the 60 per cent. target is, or whether a higher target can be reached in some parts of the country. I hope that that information will be available within the next 12 months at least.
If there is to be more development on brown-field sites, the Government have to work hard on the issue of contaminated land. The Select Committee on the Environment first looked at contaminated land over 10 years ago, and came up with a series of recommendations. The previous Administration looked at them, rejected them or altered them, but took very little action. I plead with the Government to get on with the regulations for contaminated land. We have to get on with providing the money so that many of the sites can be reclaimed. We will be able to reach a target of 60 per cent. or higher only if we put that in place.
We have to look at the way in which local authorities are hoarding land for industry. I made some inquiries around the local authorities in Greater Manchester about the amount of land they have in the hope of attracting industry to it. When one adds up all such land around Greater Manchester, one realises that it would be impossible to attract that amount of industry to the area, and, if that amount of industry could be attracted, there would be no way in which there would be sufficient people to work in it. Local authorities must make much more effort to hold back a realistic amount of land for the creation of jobs, which is extremely important, while releasing some of the land for housing. That would go a long way towards reaching the target of 60 per cent.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the difficulty of deciding how many brown-field sites are available, as opposed to green-field sites. I also take his point that surplus land may be marked for industrial use. Will the hon. Gentleman share with the House his view and that of the Select Committee on green belt land? Does he agree that, wherever the houses go, they should not go on established green belt sites?

Mr. Bennett: There is unanimity across the House that, as far as possible, green belt land should be sacrosanct. However, there is that little phrase, "as far as possible". That reasoning has been behind the tradition of green belt land, and the Committee and I did not deviate from that historical view.
I must point out that many of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee did not want housing in their area, but they were still working hard to promote


new industries and new jobs. I plead with local authorities, if they are going out to campaign to attract jobs to their area, to accept equal responsibility for providing houses for the people who will carry out that activity.
The core of our report is that we need urban regeneration. We need to make our cities and urban areas work. One of our recommendations was that the Government should produce a White Paper. I am glad that, earlier this week, they announced that we will get an urban White Paper. This is not just a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—the Deputy Prime Minister's Department—but one that goes right across the Government.
Regeneration of our cities must include ensuring that the schools are tip-top, and that we deal with crime and the problems that shops face. Regeneration means improving the whole environment, and many Government Departments need to play a part. I therefore hope that the White Paper will not suffer from departmentitis, but will receive full co-operation in its production.
If we are to regenerate our cities, we must regenerate some of their old buildings. The Committee was lucky enough to visit Poundbury to see the Prince of Wales's proposals for housing. However, I found more encouraging the work that he is doing with the Heritage Trust to try to bring back into residential use many of the old buildings in our cities. In my constituency, we have the Houldsworth mill project, which I hope succeeds. In the years that I have been in the House, many proposals have been made to bring that fine old mill into residential use, but they never quite made it. I hope that this time will be different.
I welcome the Government's response to the issue of revising the planning regulations, but quick action is needed. The Government have given a commitment to revise planning policy guidance note 3 on housing, PPG11 on regional plans and PPG12 on development plans. The release of land for housing is a crucial issue. At the moment, local authority plans have to include a five-year supply. Unless the Government move quickly, the danger is that some builders will race to use green-field sites, knowing that it will be difficult to use them in the future. I hope that the Government can reassure the House that they will move as speedily as possible to revise the planning regulations.
I mentioned the probable increased demand for social housing. The Committee was disappointed by the Government's response on social housing, although we may have been a little harsh in our report.
The Minister for London and Construction has made his reputation in championing the need for social housing, but his appearance before the Committee was disappointing. I understand that he knew the results of the spending review and we did not, but I reiterate that we need much more social housing than the Government are so far committed to providing. It is a disappointing cop-out to say that it is the responsibility of local authorities. If one local authority attempts to provide social housing, it is often taken up by people from neighbouring authorities that have made no provision. The Government need to set a much more realistic target.
The key to the whole process is continuous monitoring. I hope that the Government will report regularly to the House on how much new housing will be built on

brown-field sites. It is very important that the Government succeed in regenerating our cities, because that would improve the quality of life for people who live in them, as well as stop the continual spread of housing into the countryside. I hope that we have a good debate on the report, and, more importantly, that we see action from the Government.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential measure to regenerate our inner cities and relieve the pressures on the countryside and green-field sites is fiscal
incentives for the building industry? The imposition of value added tax on the regeneration of older properties and the zero-rating of new properties on green-field sites is an anomaly. If the position were harmonised, it would provide an incentive for the building industry.

Mr. Bennett: I agree. If my hon. Friend had read the report, he would know that we have made that point, and that we were pleased by the Government's response. It is crazy that there is no VAT on new building, and that anyone who wants to regenerate buildings within cities, or conversions of old mills or shops or whatever, faces the problem of paying VAT. We are tied by Europe, and we cannot abolish VAT, although that would be the best approach.
I am keen to keep within the promised 15 minutes. I recommend to the House our report, and many aspects of the Government's response. My plea is for action on implementing a sensible housing policy for the next 15 years, so that all our people can enjoy decent homes.

Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who chairs the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and his colleagues on a timely, important and interesting report. They have done the House a service. Partly in jest, I find it slightly puzzling that the Deputy Prime Minister should have strongly welcomed the report, given that it contains a number of veiled criticisms of his own actions, both in the text and between the lines. There is a bald statement that the Committee found the answers given to it by one junior Minister to be both "vacuous and disingenuous"
The report represents a thinly veiled attack on the dithering and inaction that characterise the Government's attitude to housing provision. The Committee's findings vindicate our consistent criticism of the Deputy Prime Minister's failure to address the problem of household growth and of the Government's inability to engage in joined-up thinking on the important issue of housing.
The report is a valuable contribution to debate. Although it is in places couched in soft language, it is in many ways a damning indictment of the complacency with which the Government have approached a critical issue. It is a call to arms to those of us on both sides of the House who care about the preservation of the countryside and the regeneration of our towns and cities.
I shall take the House through some of the Committee's key findings. I hope that the House will forgive me for indulging in some translation, so that hon. Members who have not had the privilege of reading the report in its entirety may have some of its flavour, stripped of the spin that Ministers and their advisers have sought to put on it.
The proposals in the White Paper "Planning for the Communities of the Future" are, in the words of the Committee,
well-intentioned, but vague.
The report states:
We do not believe they will be adequate to achieve their aims.
In other words, unless the Government decide to do something instead of just talking about the problems, the countryside will be swamped with new developments, and our towns and cities will suffer decay and deprivation. The report is certainly a long way short of the ringing endorsement to which the Deputy Prime Minister laid claim on Monday.
The report repeatedly stresses the need for a brown-field development target of 60 per cent. or more, to be applied as soon as possible. The Committee supports
an interim national target…of at least 60 per cent., which should be applied in the coming round of Regional Planning Guidance, rather than over 10 years as the Government has proposed.
If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing once again, unless the Government decide to do something instead of just talking, the green belt will not be saved, and our towns and cities will continue to be scarred by derelict sites. Again, that seems to fall short of the endorsement heralded by the Secretary of State.
The report continues:
It is important that the target set should be challenging, e.g. 60 per cent. or higher—some witnesses thought 75 per cent. was possible".
For the Government to state—as the Deputy Prime Minister did on Monday—that that constitutes support for the Government's 60 per cent. target is, to coin a phrase, both vacuous and disingenuous.
Our manifesto at the general election stated that we would set a target of more than 60 per cent. We have since pressed the Government to fix a target of two thirds. I hope that the Minister can rise to announce that, in the light of the Select Committee's evidence, he will increase the target to two thirds with immediate effect.
The report is not just critical of what the Deputy Prime Minister has not done. It attacks what little he has done to discharge his duties—for example, in relation to the task force which he set up under Lord Rogers. The report states:
We are concerned as to whether the Task Force will be able to undertake the wide range of tasks it has been set … It must not be used as a means of causing delay.
Again, the implication is clear. The Committee believes what Conservative Members have long suspected: as with so many other task forces and reviews set up over the past 18 months, the Government see this as a way of kicking the ball into the long grass and hoping that the problem will go away.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: I will certainly give way to the Chairman, although I do not wish to give way again, because of the scarcity of time.

Mr. Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Government did not produce in the years after

the target was put forward a register of how much brown-field land was available? If we had that information, everybody could put forward a realistic figure, not one based on guesswork.

Mr. Burns: I understand and have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is important not to overlook the fact that, at the same time during that time scale, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was determined to ensure that more and more building was done on brown-field sites when it was feasible, so as to protect and preserve the countryside and green-field sites.
The Committee states:
Central government must support local authorities when they restrict the use of green-field sites.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now accept that he was wrong on the principle of the issue to force West Sussex county council to cater for an extra 13,000 homes in its local plans, flying in the face of opposition from all three parties on the county council and of the advice of the planning inspectorate?
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will care to tell the House this, despite the answer which the Under-Secretary of State used as a dodge at Question Time on Tuesday to avoid the issue. To get away from the niceties of the sub judice rule that the Under-Secretary used, I am asking whether the Minister would care to answer the question on the principle rather than on the individual case.
How can that decision be squared with the words of the Select Committee and the Deputy Prime Minister's support for the report? How can such developments be squared with the recommendations and the Government's own rhetoric on transport? In particular, can the Minister explain how allowing major developments on green-field sites away from shops and other facilities contributes to the aim of reducing the need to travel? To judge from these glaring inconsistencies, the Government are scarcely capable of joined-up writing, let alone joined-up thinking, on the issue.
The Committee adds its voice to our own and the voices of numerous other interested bodies in calling for urgent revision to the Department's planning guidance notes, particularly PPG3 and PPG13. The Government have said that they intend to issue new guidance, and we welcome the commitment given in the Government's response to the report on Monday. The report rightly states that, without a clear planning framework,
there will be uncertainty and the likelihood that in some regions the Government's policies on urban regeneration, integrated transport and sustainability will be ignored.
When can we expect to see this new guidance? Does the Minister have any news for us on that during this debate?
Why, when the Deputy Prime Minister announced the 60 per cent. target as long ago as February, has there been no movement so far to start giving effect to that target? He increasingly resembles an archer with only a small target to aim at and a quiver as empty as his rhetoric. The means to replace his stock of arrows are within his own power and the longer he delays, the more people will suspect that he does not want to start shooting at all.
The report also calls for the Government to announce a strategy for meeting the target set by the previous Government for reducing the amount of empty property,


and to issue advice to local authorities. I take the opportunity to add our voice to that of the Select Committee and remind the Government that Labour-controlled councils currently have the highest proportion of stock awaiting letting. The 10 authorities with the highest proportion of properties ready for letting or awaiting minor repairs are all, not unexpectedly, Labour-controlled.
Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what plans the Government have to make sure that Labour councils bring their performance into line with that achieved by Conservative councils. Is he aware that the number of vacant dwellings is rising? There are now some 80,000 vacant dwellings under local authority management, accounting for almost 2.5 per cent. of the stock. How do the Government propose to tackle that major and growing problem?
Local authorities and the framework within which they operate will play a key role in determining the success of any strategy to bring more brown-field sites into use.

Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: I am sorry—I will not give way, because time is short and so many other hon. Members wish to speak.
The Government may rest assured that Conservative councillors will continue to protect the green belt against development as long as they are not further hindered by decisions from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Conservative councillors in towns and cities will continue to urge the reuse of derelict sites and the clean-up of contaminated land. What measures does the Minister plan to introduce to ensure consistency across the planning system to give effect to the target of 60 per cent. of building on brown-field sites? Are the Government prepared to use their influence with the Labour-run authorities in our towns and cities, which control much of the brown land in question, to ensure that local authorities play their part in freeing brown-field sites for housing purposes? How does the Minister intend to encourage local authorities to allow brown land currently designated for industrial or commercial use to be used instead for residential purposes where feasible?
At present, planning law entitles local authorities to ask for contributions from developers towards the cost of overcoming genuine planning obstructions, such as widening road junctions or expanding the capacity of local schools. Conservative councillors will continue to seek fair agreements with developers for the joint funding of necessary local improvements.
Some local authorities allegedly abuse the system in order to finance unrelated spending. I understand that one local authority even demanded a contribution towards play areas from developers who were providing sheltered housing for the elderly. Such abuse discourages would-be developers from making applications to use brown-field sites. What will the Government do to prevent such seemingly sharp practices?
What line do the Government plan to take on the draft EU rules that will bar public bodies from contributing to pollution clean-up, and will insist that all land be returned to its natural state, regardless of its end use? When will

the Government fix parameters for pollution clean-up, so that developers and local authorities know exactly where they stand?
The Government's response to the report is a poor attempt to paint it as an endorsement of their approach. That claim is not supported by a careful reading of the report. In fact, as the Deputy Prime Minister said on Monday, pretty much everybody claims to agree with the basic principles that we need more sustainable patterns of development and that we should minimise the use of green-field sites and maximise reuse of brown-field sites. The report exposes the hypocrisy of a Government who purport to defend the countryside and promote urban regeneration, while all the time taking decisions such as that in West Sussex, which undermine and frustrate their declared aims.
When the report was published, Friends of the Earth stated:
the Select Committee has not been fooled by John Prescott's vague rhetoric.
The Government's response represents more of the same. The Select Committee was not fooled then, and I assure Ministers that the House will not be fooled now.
The Government's response is woefully inadequate. Its so-called strategy for meeting demand for new housing has been exposed as a sham. It is a catalogue of delay, indecision and downright incompetence. Instead of trying to paint a gloss over the report and paper over the cracks in their failed approach, the Government should go back to the drawing board and urgently consider relaying the entire foundations of their strategy to meet the problems facing the countryside and urban regeneration.

Mrs. Christine Butler: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has not moved the debate further on—indeed, it has been stripped of context. He has not given due consideration to the Government's response to the Select Committee report—a response that was broadly welcomed by Labour Members. The big strategy of sustainability is one that we must all endorse. To move matters on, it is up to all of us to engage in debate on the detail of how to implement that strategy.
The Government and the Select Committee require sustainability to be at the heart of the debate—sustainability in respect of environmental, social and economic concerns. I urge the Government, when considering local authority planning application assessments, to give as much weight to social and economic criteria as to environmental criteria. That is extremely important, because, if we are not careful, the debate will shift in favour of the environmental agenda, which must not be considered in isolation from the social and economic agendas.
A big issue that has not yet been properly addressed, but which is all too evident, is the existence of huge regional differences in need and capacity. There is an enormous difference between north and south in general, but I should like to highlight the case of the south-east, where some of the biggest problems are found. The expected provision in that area is approximately one third of the 4.4 million new homes that have to be built. That is a pretty tall order. I welcome the so-called brown-field task force, although I would prefer the term "previously


used land" to "brown field", as I do not think the latter term is appropriate. The task force has been set up to examine urban capacity for regeneration needs, especially in the London area.
The problem is one not merely of providing more housing, but of creating balanced communities. It is important to pay attention to all an area's needs—economic, social and environmental. Ringing the London region are commuter districts. The majority of my constituents commute to their jobs. If that carries on, it will become unsustainable in terms of both transport and the provision of social housing.
I welcome some of the comments in the Government's response, but one or two issues need further detailed examination. In the context of fiscal strategies, there is a real need to redefine conversions, even though the Government would encounter great difficulty with the European Commission, and there would be a prolonged debate about the equalisation of the value added tax regime between new build and conversions. However, if it is at all possible to redefine conversions in the context of the need for new housing, it might bear down on the existing 17.5 per cent. VAT levy. That would be a great achievement.
A further issue with which we must take great care—one which Friends of the Earth and others might push without giving it proper consideration—is that of the green-field levy. It sounds like a great idea, especially if the money was to be put into brown-field site conversion and solving the problems that exist there. However, although I do not want the Government to abandon the idea, it should be a less immediate priority and the Government should give further consideration to the pros and cons of imposing such a levy.
Of the greatest urgency and importance are the new planning policy guidance notes. Already, local authorities are proposing and adopting plans, and regional planning conferences are at various stages of reporting and adoption. If we do not get the new PPGs in soon, we shall leave ourselves open to speculative developments on green-field land.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Lady mentions PPGs, but does she not agree that the major problem facing the south-east is that 868,000 new houses are scheduled to be built in the south-east of England alone? I am sure that she would agree that the consequences, including the use of public funds for infrastructure, are far-reaching and should be addressed in the House now. Has the hon. Lady actually envisaged what 868,000 houses will mean to the whole of the south-east of England?

Mrs. Butler: I am following my own track and my own agenda. If I am allowed to continue, the hon. Gentleman will hear the answer to his question. The lack of attention paid to the issues dealt with by the Committee and to the smaller points that I am highlighting now is what really matters. We know what the figures are.
There has already been speculative interest in green-field sites in my constituency. The authority would like to reject that, but cannot do so, because of legal niceties. In 1951, a certain site received planning

permission for mixed-use, retail and housing development. Try as it might, since that time the authority has been unable to reallocate land use policy in that area, even though the circumstances in the constituency and the wider region have changed dramatically. Why is the authority unable to act? The answer is that a road was built—one road through the whole site, with the result that the site holds developers' interest unfairly.
That is why I welcome a hint in the proposed PPG3 that the Government might be able to strengthen local authorities' resolve when applications for renewal are made. Perhaps huge compensation need not be payable to the inheritors of the land when the local authority can prove that the application is unsuitable. There should be a further requirement: if a proposal has not been entirely developed within a certain period, it fails, and a new application is required. The nonsense of digging a trench or laying a bit of tarmac on a site should no longer be accepted. There is a loophole, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to these concerns as soon as possible, if that is appropriate.
Greater consideration should be given to the issues that I have raised. Local authorities are being stymied in their attempts to provide the most sustainable solutions within their own neighbourhoods and communities.

Mr. Anthony Steen: This is an important debate. I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its work on an important subject.
We are told that 4.4 million new houses are to be built by 2016. That is such a large figure that none of us can grasp what 4.4 million houses would look like. Is that equal to the whole of London or Reading? I wonder whether the Government are planning an exhibition on the Upper Committee Corridor to give us an idea of what 4.4 million houses would look like on the ground.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Those were the hon. Gentleman's Government's figures.

Mr. Steen: The Minister says that they were our Government's figures, but his Government have adopted them. I want to know how the Government came up with 4.4 million houses. Did the boffins in Kingsway think up that figure? What science do the officials profess to practise? Do they stick pins into lists of figures? What are their qualifications? Is there a special science for working out how many houses are needed?

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the process has gone on for many years? The interesting point is that officials have got the figures right over time.

Mr. Caborn: Thirty years.

Mr. Bennett: They have got the figures right for 30 years. It is dangerous to poke fun at the figures. We are keen that there should be more background information about the figures so that people can analyse them, but their track record is extremely good.

Mr. Steen: I would hate to argue with the hon. Gentleman, who was my pair many years ago and whose


interest in and illustrious track record on the environment and housing is well known in the House, but the fact that figures have been allegedly proved right over 30 years does not mean that the projected figures are correct. The process has worked only because it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy—we go on building houses and people move into them. That does not mean that the figures are right, or that the science is right. The Select Committee could do the House a great service by inquiring in detail into the science and deciding whether it is flawed.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a document published in 1997 entitled "The Economic Determinants of Household Formation—A literature review", which the previous Government commissioned in 1996. It contains a great deal of information about the variables used in the prediction of future household growth and need. The figure has not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, been plucked out of thin air. It was defended yesterday by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who shared a platform with me at a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman is well apprised of the fact that a great deal of work has gone into calculating the figure and the hon. Gentleman should understand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Mr. Steen: It was not only far too long but unhelpful. It would be wise if I did not give way again because of the danger of spurious remarks distracting the House from the important points that I shall make. [Interruption.] It is good to hear that those on the Government Front Bench are particularly verbal and volatile today—that always means that one is dealing with points that worry them. Clearly they are concerned about what I shall say and they are trying to stop me saying it, but I shall not be deterred.
I have challenged the acceptance of the figures regardless of which Government proposed them. I am not afraid to say that I would challenge a Conservative Government if we were in office. Unfortunately we are not, so I am challenging the Labour Government to question the figures. I will not dwell on that point.
If we accept the figure of 4.4 million homes, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy and we should consider how it will affect the south-west, where 438,000 houses are to be built. The Devon structure plan, which includes my constituency, proposed 90,500 homes. That was not enough, and after a public inquiry, the figure was raised to 95,000.
The South Hams, which comprises the majority of my constituency, will have 13,500 additional new dwellings by 2011. That is curious because the House of Commons Library concluded that my constituency is one of the most beautiful in Britain. It did so by examining the number of environmental beauty categories into which the Totnes and South Hams area falls. It has the heritage coastline, areas of great landscape value, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, the Dartmoor national park, conservation areas and so on. How could 13,500 houses be built in such an area without destroying green fields or eating into special environmentally protected areas? Furthermore, it is said

that a further 300 acres is needed for employment land and, within the area covered by Devon county council, 3,000 acres is needed for employment land.
It is argued that new homes will be required to house the existing population. I challenge that. We are told that the vast increase in the number of houses is simply necessary to provide for a larger number of individual households, mainly because of divorce, which will create a need for 40 per cent. of the new homes. In addition, 30 per cent. of the new homes are needed because people live longer and another 30 per cent. are needed for young people who leave home and move around the country for work purposes.
I was told that the housing projection for the South Hams is intended to rehouse people who already live there. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to this point. In 1981, the population of South Hams was 69,993. By 1997, the number had risen to 80,200—an increase of about 18 per cent. By contrast, the population in the whole county of Devon increased by 5 per cent. only. It cannot be that more than 90,000 new houses are needed to redistribute the existing population if there are dramatic increases in population numbers. The population increase in the South Hams has been out of all proportion to that in the county and in the south-west. In no way is that redistribution; it is plain inward migration.
More houses are needed because people come from other places with their families, pets and motor cars to live in Devon, not because overcrowded households need more space. In the three months ending March 1998, 8,233 additional people moved into the county. Since 1988, 8,000 people have been moving into the county every three months. Only during the economic crisis in 1991 did the figure drop. That means that 32,000 people move to Devon every year. That is why the new houses are needed—not to rehouse local people, which is entirely another matter. The county council says that 90,000 new houses are required for local people. That is not true; it is a figment of the planners' and statisticians' imaginations.
My experience supports that. On Saturday afternoons when I have little else to do, I knock on doors at random. That is one of my hobbies, and I should declare it as an interest. Oddly, I find that most of the people whose doors I knock on are newcomers, not people who have moved from other parts of Devon.
Adding to the population rather than redistributing it creates enormous pressure on the local infrastructure. For example, the building of new houses has been banned in Dartmouth because the sewerage system cannot cope. In Ivybridge, the sewerage system is backing up because so many people use it and the facilities are not sufficient.
The Government's housing projections, if implemented, would destroy tens of thousands of acres of green-field land, but in the South Hams they will eat into the special categories of beauty that the House of Commons Library has highlighted as particularly important.
One of the greatest ironies is that the very beauty that attracts people to my constituency will be destroyed by the buildings that they are intending to occupy. Who is running the county council? I am afraid that it is the Liberals. Who is running the Torbay unitary authority that governs part of my constituency? Again, it is the Liberals. Who is running the South Hams district council? I am afraid that it is the Liberals.
On 30 July, the Liberal county council whipped in all its councillors to attend a debate on the structure plan. They approved the Government's structure plan for the building of 90,000 new houses, despite strong opposition from the Conservatives. That occurred on the afternoon of 30 July. In the evening of 30 July, the Liberals launched a campaign opposing the 90,000 figure that they had approved that afternoon. They are now running around Devon organising meetings and campaigning against the proposal that they passed on the afternoon of 30 July. That is a good Liberal story, is it not? The Liberals talk about sustainable development, but those 90,000 houses are unsustainable. They talk about environmental sensitivity, but they are not the least bit sensitive to the environment.
I must now conclude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I am glad that Labour Members have enjoyed my comments and are ready to respond to them.
I propose a solution to the problem. The Government could ask the local authorities in Devon to agree on a sustainable figure. The Liberals on the Devon county council said that they passed the Government's structure plan because they feared that, if they did not, the Government would increase the figure. If the Government would tell Devon county council, "We will not increase the number of houses, so go back to the other local authorities and come up with a figure that you think is sustainable", the Government would not have to call in the plan. That outcome is inevitable, as the plan would have disastrous consequences in a county as beautiful as Devon—and certainly in the South Hams.
My proposal amounts to a more democratic way of handling the matter. When the Minister replies perhaps he could consider what I believe is a very sensible approach: asking the local authorities to provide a more sustainable figure. I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that my comments have been helpful to the House.

Ms Hazel Blears: I welcome the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee and the recommendations contained therein. I compliment Committee members on the huge amount of work that they have undertaken in compiling the report. I understand that they have seen at least 30 sets of witnesses and received more than 200 memorandums. It has greatly assisted those hon. Members, like myself, who do not serve on the Committee to see the depth of consideration that Committee members have given to these important issues.
Contrary to the assertions made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), I consider the report to be an example of joined-up thinking and joined-up government. It raises issues regarding not just housing but the sustainable development of communities. It will ensure that new housing developments take account of environmental and transport factors. A key recommendation in the report is that housing should be located close to people's places of employment so that they do not have to travel great distances to work. That recommendation is essential to regenerating our towns and cities.
The report is a good example of cross-departmental thinking and it begins to touch on many important issues. It also echoes many of the recommendations in the report

of the social exclusion unit, "Bringing Communities Together". We must tackle some very serious issues, not simply housing matters, if we are to regenerate and renew many inner-city areas.
In the limited time available, I shall concentrate on the Committee's recommendations regarding urban areas and inner cities because my constituency is one of the poorest and most deprived inner-city areas in the country. In inner cities our problems are not about a shortage of land, but more about the breakdown of families and communities and the wholesale migration of owner-occupiers, leaving behind dereliction and decay. That is a very difficult issue to tackle in the long term.
I believe that housing must play a major role in urban regeneration. Housing constitutes 80 per cent. of development and is the key to improving our communities. We must bring empty properties back into use. The report's recommendations regarding harmonisation of value added tax on renovations and conversions are crucial. We must ensure that, as far as possible, there is a level playing field for new developments and conversions.
There are several problem areas in Salford which illustrate some of the difficulties that the report tries to tackle. I shall touch briefly on some of them. The Broughton area has a huge problem with small terraced housing. There has been an influx of private landlords, and owner-occupiers have moved out of the city. Indiscriminate letting policies of housing associations and private landlords have produced nuisance tenants who have driven out the majority of good, decent people who formerly lived in those communities.
We are beginning to regenerate the area. A joint single regeneration budget project with our neighbours in Manchester is working well, but it is difficult to encourage private developers to help us. I am delighted that the report highlights the action by English Partnerships to provide incentives and gap funding for developers to encourage them into our inner-city areas. Their assistance is crucial if we are to stabilise our communities and give local people some hope that things will change and improve. We must convince them to stay in our inner cities.
The recommendation for sequential planning consideration, whereby developers must show that they have considered using previously developed land before they are allowed to develop new sites, will be incredibly helpful in inner-city areas. However, we must question the future of small terraced housing. I received a letter only this week from a constituent in Kersal, which is an area of such housing. It is just one example of the hundreds of letters that I receive on this subject. My constituent explains that she is the owner of a two-bedroom terraced property which she cannot sell. She believes that the main problem lies with builders and property developers who are flinging up estates of semi-detached homes with carpets, curtains and gardens which cost about the same as her terraced property. Many first-time buyers are opting for those new starter homes rather than the traditional terraced housing. That leaves us with the real problem of how to encourage occupation in many such areas. Wholesale slum clearance is clearly not an option: it is too expensive and it destroys communities. However, in many parts of the north there is a real question about the relevance of terraced housing.
Another part of the city that has suffered huge problems in recent years is Seedley and Langworthy, where all of the problems of our inner cities—crime, unemployment and poor education—coalesce. We have produced a Seedley and Langworthy action plan which is designed to tackle those problems. Housing is a key regeneration factor and relies on the concept of a partnership of local people. That partnership is led by the community and involves business, voluntary groups, housing associations and a private developer. We have also almost persuaded a building society to join us to talk about how it can contribute to housing regeneration. Building societies are notoriously reluctant to become involved in regeneration, and I am particularly proud that we have been able to secure that assistance.
The action plan for Seedley and Langworthy is not just about housing; it is about education, health and jobs. It proposes the establishment of a community housing company so that local people can determine who lives in the area and how best to achieve regeneration. It is a 10-year plan because we recognise that many problems will not be solved overnight: we will require improvements, year on year. However, local people are determined to tackle the existing problems.
There are just 3,000 homes in the area, and 600 of them are empty. They have been boarded and bricked up or torched and left derelict and in decay because good, decent families have been driven out by crime and other inner-city problems. We must bring those properties back into beneficial use: that is the key to sustainable regeneration.
We must also tackle the problem of private landlords. The report says that the private rented sector has acted as a safety valve. That might be true in some areas, but the private rented sector in Salford is the source of much deterioration and decay. My heart sinks whenever I see a "For Rent" sign in my constituency because I know that it signals that another area is in decline. The owner-occupiers have gone and the absentee landlords and nuisance neighbours have arrived. I know that they will drive people out and that we will see properties boarded up, bricked up and torched. It is almost a logical progression. We must break that cycle of decay that is apparent in so many inner-city areas.
I have written to Ministers requesting regulations governing licensing. I would like to see housing benefit sanctions applied to some absent landlords—there is nothing more effective than hitting them in the pocket. Absentee landlords receive housing benefit and they do not care to whom they rent their properties. They do not manage their properties properly and they are not responsible landlords. I am not referring to every private landlord, but in many parts of my constituency a great deal of that goes on.
The city has a voluntary registration scheme for landlords and about 50 per cent. of them have signed up, but it is the good ones who sign up, the bad ones do not want to be involved. They do not want to be responsible for their properties. The issue must be tackled. Housing benefit sanctions, although difficult to impose, would concentrate minds wonderfully and I urge Ministers to consider them seriously.
We have a lot of hope in Salford. Although there are many problems, we are tackling them together. There is a long way to go, but the provision of decent, safe, warm,

affordable and high-quality housing will be the key to our city's renewal and the urban renaissance that is categorised in the report. I welcome the prospect of an urban White Paper which will bring together our thinking across a range of Departments and provide a key and catalyst to urban regeneration.
Cities can be exciting and vibrant places. It is not true that the countryside is the rural idyll and that cities are bad places to live—they can be full of life, the arts and culture. They can have a real buzz. I want my city to have that buzz and to come up from the bottom. We have reached rock bottom and there is only one direction in which to go. We are coming up and fighting back, and I know that the Labour Government will give us the best chance that we have had for the past 20 or 30 years to regenerate our city and make Salford a better place to live, work and bring up families. We are determined to work on it together.

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the topical nature of the housing report and part if not all of the Government's response to it. However, I should like to highlight some issues on which I feel that the Government's response is weak or possibly unhelpful.
First, let me turn to the housing projection figures. The report calls the estimate of 4.4 million new homes
the best one there is",
yet in a report in The Guardian on Monday, senior Government sources are quoted as saying that 5 million new homes would be a more realistic estimate. If that is the view of senior Government sources, and given that it will be significantly harder to identify sites for that increased number of new homes, it should be out in the open and not hidden away in the inside pages of The Guardian.
Secondly, on the national target for development on brown-field sites, and perhaps anticipating the contribution from Conservative Members, who no doubt will be calling for a target that is higher than 60 per cent., it is worth reminding the House of their record in government. Under the Tories, an average of about six in 10 homes were built on green-field sites, so the shadow Minister was right the first time when he said that the Tory Government were intent on developing more homes on green-field sites. It is a pity that they have discovered only recently that there is more to be gained by defending the countryside than by building all over it.
The Liberal Democrats do not consider a 60 per cent. target for development on brown-field land to be particularly ambitious. If the right policies were in place, more could be achieved. For instance, the Council for the Protection of Rural England argues that the capacity of cities and towns for new housing is a matter of policy rather than physical constraint. The 60 per cent. target should be an interim target, a stepping stone to a tougher target of 75 per cent.
Thirdly, there is the problem of defining brown-field land. The Government need to refine their definition and make a distinction between sites previously used for housing or industrial developments and ex-MOD land, such as abandoned airfields, which may mostly comprise of green fields. Establishing a new category of land in the development hierarchy, which we have dubbed


taupe-field, would enable such sites to be considered for development after consideration of recycled land. The definition could include, for instance, land adjacent to an out-of-town development or situated by a road of at least B status or used for specific purposes. The development hierarchy would then prioritise conversion of old buildings; then development on brown-field sites; then taupe-field sites; and, finally, green-field sites.
That might help to defuse the controversies surrounding proposed developments, such as the proposal for 50,000 new homes on ex-MOD airfields near Cambridge. The new definition would also address some of the Select Committee's concerns that,
by promoting Brownfield land, regardless of its location, we continue to encourage unsustainable forms of settlement.
Fourthly, a new planning policy guidance note 3 must be issued without delay. It is the simplest means of ensuring that the desired changes to planning policy are implemented forthwith. Otherwise, building on green-field land will continue apace. The Government must provide a firm date by which it is to be published. The Department's best estimate today was that it would be some time early next year. I encourage the Minister to give a more precise date.
Fifthly, one must consider the role of the regional planning conferences which are to spearhead the Government's approach to the provision of future housing. I agree with the CPRE that there is no demonstrable commitment to move away from the policy of "predict and provide". The regional planning conferences have apparently received no advice on how to plan other than according to that policy. They are under-resourced and lack any statutory basis, so they are ill-equipped to deliver the Government's strategy of "plan, monitor and manage".
Sixthly, other hon. Members have mentioned the need to reduce migration. I agree with the Government that strong urban development is needed to slow down or stop net out-migration and that there is a key role for the regional development agencies. I support the policy, but we need a clear statement from the Government on whether the improvements to health, education and transport will be delivered regardless of the economic downturn and its effect on Government spending plans. The provision of better hospitals, schools and transport in urban areas would help to stop that migration.
There is one last area to consider that has been touched on today—tax reform and financial incentives. Tax changes could influence dramatically developers' choice of green-field or brown-field sites, but I fear that the Government have yet to take action. For instance, on the green-field development levy, the Government
is considering the use of economic instruments to further our planning objectives
but no decision has yet been taken as to whether to proceed. I find that response disappointing.

Mr. James Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a levy were charged on building a house on a green-field site, the price of those houses would go up to take account of the tax? That would provide an incentive to those who wish to build

executive-style homes in out-of-town development areas, so a green-field levy would have the opposite effect to the one the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Brake: That is not necessarily the case, particularly in locations where there is direct competition between building on green-field sites and building on brown-field sites. The competitive nature of the market will ensure that those house prices remain broadly the same.
The figures supplied by the Civic Trust suggest that some £200 million per annum could be raised by a 10 per cent. levy on green-field land values. If 75 per cent. of that money were spent on cleaning up contaminated land, the remaining £50 million per annum would purchase nearly 15,000 acres of arable land, which I understand from the Library is the equivalent of 53 Hyde parks. Each year we could purchase that quantity of land on the back of the green-field development levy and provide green lungs in urban and rural areas.
There is also the VAT anomaly. Why should people pay 17.5 per cent. on the conversion of properties and no VAT on new build? The Government's response is mixed. In response to an Adjournment debate, Helen Liddell commented that the VAT issue is complex, and a reduced rate could only be applied to social housing, not all housing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be referred to by constituency.

Mr. Brake: The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Minister of State, Scottish Office, with responsibility for education and industry, said that in March. She felt that the move would result in taxation loss and was not convinced by it. A few months later, in May 1998, a junior Environment Minister said that a refurbishment VAT cut was under consideration. In their response to the report, the Government say that
unifying VAT would help to provide a more level playing field for conversions".
There is clearly a need for a statement from the Government on their stance in relation to the VAT anomaly, and whether they intend to remove it. There are almost 800,000 empty homes and 800,000 potential homes in England situated in buildings suitable for redevelopment. That underlines the importance of evening out the anomaly as soon as possible.
There is also the matter of roll-over capital gains tax. As hon. Members may be aware, there is a loophole that allows farmers to purchase additional land and thereby to escape capital gains tax. That encourages building and tax evasion.
Site value rating is a subject close to Liberal Democrat hearts, which we like to mention when the opportunity arises. Will the Government consider replacing the uniform business rate with site value rating, a system that taxes the value of land rather than the use made of it? That would encourage landowners to make use of their land, rather than leaving it derelict.
Finally, I accept that limited progress is being made on maximising development on brown-field sites, but the Government must move further and faster. With 110 sq km of countryside disappearing under concrete every year, every week's delay in implementing the Government's new


policy means that a further 2 sq km of countryside are lost for ever. If they continue to procrastinate, the Government's legacy to future generations will be row after row of identikit homes marching across down and vale. They will never be forgiven.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Select Committee's support for the Government's proposal that at least 60 per cent. of new homes should be provided on brown-field sites arises from a view of housing as a critical part of regeneration, and of regeneration as linked to jobs, training, transport, environment and the provision of social amenities. The key question is whether we have the mechanisms and policies to achieve that in the shortest possible time.
We are in a period of great change. We are embarking on a policy of integrated regional strategies. We are doing that through the creation of regional development agencies—which, I remind the Opposition, were strongly opposed by them—and through the development of regional chambers. In the draft guidance to regional development agencies published earlier this week, they are asked to adopt an integrated approach to the economy, employment, social exclusion and physical decay. The strategy is to be drawn up in co-operation with the regional chambers. For the first time there is a clear statement, guidance and structure for a regional policy on integrated development, to improve housing, the economy and the environment.
I must, however, express concern about the regional planning conferences, which are to assume increasing importance. Can the Minister assure me that the guidance given to regional planning conferences will ensure that they act in harmony with the regional economic strategies to be developed by the agency in co-operation with the elected regional chamber?

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ellman: I am sorry, but, in view of the time constraints, I cannot.
Exciting regeneration is currently under way in Everton, a deprived part of my constituency—an area where there is much dereliction, male unemployment stands at 37.5 per cent., and 80 per cent. of pupils in the partnership area involved are eligible for free school meals. Hope university college is spearheading a multimillion pound investment, transforming the disused area of the listed St. Francis Xavier school and the site around it into a major centre for arts, drama and economic development, together with accommodation. Nearby, the private sector is converting the listed disused Collegiate school into flats for sale, and near there the Riverside housing association is converting a disused listed Georgian terrace into a mixed-use development—shops, offices and flats—for a combination of rent and shared ownership.
The result of all that activity is the provision of much-needed homes on brown-field sites, educational opportunities, jobs and an improved environment, giving hope to people currently living in an abandoned and largely derelict area. Achieving that development has

been a complex task. A wide variety of funding sources have been called on—for example, English Partnerships, European funding, the Housing Corporation, the college and private sector funding.
Much has been achieved, but how much more could be achieved there and in similar areas if we had a comprehensive policy, with the mechanisms available for that policy to be used for inner-city regeneration? The steps that could be taken include reducing the 17.5 per cent. VAT on conversions, recognising the need to plan for and provide affordable housing, dealing with land assembly and contamination, recognising the new regional development agencies as an important resource for the locality, and harnessing public and private sector funding.
I see much that is encouraging in recent Government policy statements. The document "Fair deal for communities" and the report on a new approach to deprived neighbourhoods advocate joined-up thinking in situations of social breakdown. I am encouraged by the announcement of a new urban White Paper by the Secretary of State earlier this week, which shows that we are ready to adopt such thinking as part of mainstream policy. In that way we can meet housing need to its maximum on brown-field sites, regenerate the inner cities and build a new future for communities in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.

Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). Several other colleagues who have served with me on the Environment Committee over the past 18 months have spoken in the debate.
May I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who puts up with our personal foibles and our use of hyperbole on some occasions with remarkable good humour and tolerance? All members of the Committee are grateful to him for it. It must be a particularly difficult job to be the Darby to the formidable Joan supplied by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is sorry that she cannot be in the Chamber today for the debate, but who approaches the issues that we discuss in the Select Committee with a refreshing robustness of mind.
That is reflected in the report, which goes to such great lengths to criticise—fairly heavily in some parts—what the Government have done. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich would be the first to acknowledge that she was ready to do so, were she in her place this afternoon.
The criticism in the report is slightly unusual, as most of our discussion tends to achieve virtual unanimity. The report was agreed unanimously by the Committee. Despite the cross-party banter that we have heard this afternoon, the issues that we are discussing are issues which we as a nation must examine, and are not essentially party political.
On the number of houses that we will require between now and 2016, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who went to great lengths to rubbish—a rather unpleasant word—the figures. In Committee, I went to some length to try to find holes in the figures produced by my former colleagues, the excellent civil servants in the Department of the Environment, but no amount of effort on my part could


produce an argument to show that 4.4 million was necessarily wrong. Indeed, I was horrified to discover that the likelihood was that the figure might even be higher than 4.4 million new households, based on the statistical projections which were being used. It is probably not all that sensible at the start of the debate to assert that the figures are wrong. They appear to be correct, as far as statistical projections can be correct.
A more interesting question is why there will be 4.4 million new houses. The answer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, is primarily the breakdown of families, which is accelerating at such an alarming rate, and because children are tending to wish to leave home earlier than they did when I was a youngster. My experience was that one stayed at home until 21, as I did when I was at university; I stayed at home to begin with in Glasgow and thereafter moved to a bedsit for a number of years. I would never have contemplated having a flat or a house probably until I was well married and into my 30s. Indeed, I did not own any property until I was 35.
That frame of mind has perhaps changed. People nowadays tend to leave home much earlier and then to demand from the nation some form of accommodation at the age of 16. I do not believe that that is right. I do not necessarily believe that society should provide enough houses to accommodate all of the tragedies that come about as a result of family breakdown. If we were to restrict to a degree the availability of new housing in the places where people wanted to be, youngsters might be encouraged to stay at home for a little longer. That might even help some families to stay together which otherwise would fall to pieces, given the availability of somewhere else to go.
Leaving aside the number of houses that are required, we must make better use of the houses that are currently available. At April 1997, there were 767,000 empty homes in Britain, most of them in the private sector. Of that total, 81,000 were local authority homes, a large proportion being controlled by the Labour party, which must look to its own front gardens before it does anything else. There were 27,000 empty housing association homes and 19,000 empty homes belonging to other public sector bodies, mainly health authorities and the armed services.
Most of that accommodation—767,000 homes—is usable. The previous Government produced targets to reduce that total stock of usable empty housing by 3 per cent. per annum. I challenge the new Government, who are so proud of what they are doing in areas such as housing, to better the previous Government's targets. If they believe that they can do that, let us see them doing it. For example, what about 5 per cent? Perhaps they might start with some of their socialist friends. For example, my Labour-controlled local authority in Swindon has a significant number of empty homes. It is important that the Government look first to their own laurels.
In that context, is it not extraordinary that in Newcastle recently permission was given for 2,500 new houses to be built on green-field sites despite the fact that in the centre of the city 4,000 lettable properties were empty? Why do we not fill empty lettable properties in Newcastle first before we give planning permission for 2,500 homes to be built on the green belt surrounding the city?
Making better use of existing stock will not happen by chance. We can force local authorities, housing associations and private owners to make better use of existing stock only if we restrict the availability of new stock. If developers are constantly providing new stock in addition to the nation's current stock of housing, people will go to live in the new stock. If we say to developers, Look, you have a choice; you can either build on a green-field site or in the inner city", they will build on green-field sites. After all, it is so much cheaper and the homes will sell so much better.
People want—wrongly, I think—to live in suburban Britain on a green-field site. The only way in which we shall persuade developers to redevelop inner cities is physically to restrict the amount of green-field land that is available to them. As long as that land is available to them, they will use it. We must find ways of restricting much more heavily the use of green-field land that surrounds our cities.
In my constituency, there is a proposal—it has been put up by the socialist local authority in Swindon—for 17,500 new houses to be built on the land between Swindon and Wootton Bassett. However, the centre of Swindon—an old railway town—is entirely run down and a huge amount of redevelopment is necessary. People will go into the centre of the town if we say that the rural buffer zone that currently surrounds Swindon is as powerful as the green belt would be and developers may not build within it. I welcome the Government's response to rural buffer zones and other local designations. It would seem that the Government may move towards giving such zones and designations the same power in law as green belt land.
I issue a word of caution on brown-field land. It seems that there is a slight pre-supposition that all brown-field sites may be built upon. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned Ministry of Defence sites, and in my constituency I have several redundant Royal Air Force and Army sites. It would be wrong to build houses on those sites because they are green-field sites. They are in the middle of the countryside and there is no infrastructure attached to them. There are no shops, pubs, schools or roads. There is no nothing. They are, to all intents and purposes, green-field sites. The fact that they were used for something else should not be a presumption that they should be built upon.
The Government have not responded to the points made in the Select Committee's report about villages. At risk of being called a NIMBY, I shall refer to my village of Slaughterford in Wiltshire. It is a tiny hamlet within which there are 30 residents. It is proposed to build 14 executive-style homes in the village.

Mr. Caborn: It is amazing how we all live in these places.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that from a sedentary position. It is indeed amazing how we all live in these places, and I am delighted that I live in one. The Minister must come to visit me at Slaughterford. I shall try to lay on the best hospitality that I can when he does so. If the Minister comes to Slaughterford he will find a hamlet which has been untouched for 100 years. There are 30 people living in it. However, there is a proposal to build 14 executive-style homes at a cost of £600,000 each on a disused mill site in the village. Slaughterford has no


roads save two miles of single track needed to get there. There is no public transport and there is no school, no pub and no shop. There is nothing at all. There are a few tiny properties and there is the proposal to build the new houses on the mill site.
The developers are using the Government's response to the Select Committee and their talk about brown-field sites as a possible excuse to build the new homes. I say that villages should be built on only when local people have the need of somewhere to live. I think particularly of the children of agricultural workers, who need to stay in the villages. They are local people and they need to live locally. That is fine. Let us have a little bit of infill. Against that background, £600,000-worth of executive-style homes in a remote Wiltshire hamlet ain't what the Government should be encouraging.
Other than that, I wholly endorse most of what the Government have said about their preference for brown-field sites. However, like most of my hon. Friends, I regret that the Government have been so timid in going for 60 per cent. They should have endorsed our target of 66 per cent. if possible. I have slight worries about how genuine the Government are being in their preference for brown-field sites. They give lip service in favour of these sites, but, at the same time, they allow building in Stevenage, West Sussex and Newcastle, and who knows where else. The decision to build 17,000 houses round Swindon will be an interesting touchstone for the Government's attitude towards new housing in country areas.
It seems that the Government have the right ideas. The report says that they probably have the right ideas—vague but nevertheless the right ideas. In the immortal words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), they need to sharpen up their act and save our countryside from the bulldozer.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). Many of her comments apply almost equally to my constituency although perhaps to a lesser degree.
I welcome the Select Committee's report. The conclusions and recommendations are much in line with my own thinking. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the White Paper, which was produced earlier this year, are also to be welcomed, particularly the commitment to a 60 per cent. brown-field and 40 per cent. green-field future for housing land allocation. My anxiety is about how that policy is to be implemented. I am therefore pleased to note the recommendation in the Select Committee's report, which goes a long way to addressing the dilemma. I refer to the Select Committee's comment at the end of paragraph 245 on page xvii, which reads:
We strongly agree with those witnesses who argued that there must be a restriction on the amount of greenfield land available for development if developers are ever to make full use of the brownfield land available.
I could not agree more.
The Bradford unitary development plan, like others, makes far too much green-field land available. In a beautiful part of the Aire valley near Silsden in my

constituency, it could allow 1,500 additional houses in green belt. The development would almost double the size of that mainly Victorian industrial village, remove for ever its character, urbanise yet further that green and pleasant part of our Aire valley, and leave schools, roads and other facilities unable to cope without massive injections of public money. The Silsden town action group, with support from me and the parish council, will oppose any detailed planning applications as they arise.
I want to touch on two other green-field sites in my constituency's part of Bradford's UDP. Manor Garth, which has always been regarded as common land in Addingham in the Wharfe valley, was designated in the UDP as village green space. Unfortunately, the owners saw a sizeable profit coming their way if it was zoned for housing. They appealed, and the Department's inspector under the previous Government agreed that their land should be available for housing. In the teeth of opposition from the parish council, the civic society, the local authority and me, there is a strong possibility that eventually, this much cherished field, which allows views of some interesting ancient buildings, will be lost for ever.
An almost identical situation prevails at Leeming, a hamlet close to the village of Oxenhope. Again, the landowner, on appeal to the inspector, was able to change a field from village green space to housing land and, at a stroke, enhance the potential size of his bank balance. I and Oxenhope village action group, the parish council and local councillors oppose any development on the site.
The UDP review is starting to roll again. I hope that my constituents will take a much more careful and critical view of it than they and their councillors took four and a half years ago. I also hope that the next plan will be under the guidance of the Department, which will be implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee report.
To show that all is not doom and gloom in my constituency on the planning and housing front, I shall mention a few minor triumphs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing visited us during the recess and saw two schemes funded by the single regeneration budget. The one in Keighley town centre is now complete, with family homes available at affordable rents. The other is at Oakworth road, where Hillworth lodge, the old and much detested workhouse, will be converted and enhanced to form a mixture of maisonettes and houses for older people and families. Plans to create a living-over-the-shop scheme of apartments in the town centre are being explored. I hope that they will eventually take shape. Those schemes will help regenerate and enhance Keighley town centre and the quality of life of those living there. Unlike the three green-field developments that I mentioned earlier, they are made up of homes that local people on low incomes will be able to afford.
Many brown-field sites and unused buildings could be used for housing if there were incentives for developers to consider them instead of the rich pickings of green-field sites. Keighley has many former mills standing derelict, and there are the unused warehouses on the Leeds-Liverpool canal, which British Waterways is anxious to offload.
Nearer the centre of Bradford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), lie the historic Lister's Manningham mills,


where once the finest velvets were manufactured. The Victoria and Albert museum had thought of moving its south-east Asia collection there, which would have been welcomed by the local community, but, alas, that will not happen. What better way to use the building than to create hundreds of well-designed flats at affordable rents? Such a development has taken place at Saltaire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) in the old mending and burling shed of Salts mill, alongside imaginative conversions of other parts of Salts to health authority offices, a Hockney art gallery and various attractive shops. It is a well-thought out conversion and use of what was becoming another derelict mill.
There is so much that can be done to provide homes without losing vast areas of our countryside. Our Government are moving in the right direction. Where there is a political will, a practical way can usually be found. The report points us in the direction of that practical way. I congratulate the Committee on its thorough work and excellent ideas.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The Committee has produced a report and made recommendations that ontribute significantly to the housing debate, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them.
In Hampshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) know, we are facing a nightmare scenario. According to regional planning guidance, we are threatened with 56,000 houses. More than 25 per cent.—15,000—are destined for Basingstoke. Borough officials tell me that 76 per cent. of those must be built on green-field sites because of the lack of brown-field sites in the town of Basingstoke.
There was an interesting variation of view between my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I agree that 4.4 million may be the best estimate. I, too, have spent some time studying the various statistics that make up that estimate. I, too, find puzzling points which I shall tell the House about and ask my hon. Friends to contemplate. One is that in the period considered, there is a phenomenal anticipated increase in the number of European Union citizens working in the United Kingdom. The figure rises to 850,000, which means that we will have immigration not equalled even at the height of West Indian immigration in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the estimate does not take into account UK citizens who go to work in other EU countries.
Another puzzling feature is the extraordinary slow-down assumed in the number of cohabiting non-married couples. We know from the census that in the 10 years before 1991, cohabiting unmarried couples increased from 2.9 to 6.4 per cent. of households, more than double, but for the 15 years covered by this estimate, the increase is only 0.3 per cent. It is very puzzling to think what social reason will lead to that extraordinary change. In those two respects, I believe that the estimate is likely to be suspect.
There is common ground on at least one aspect in this debate: priority must given to brown-field site development and urban regeneration. I regret that the

hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not in his seat. He and I seldom agree. This time we do, and I regret that he is not at hand to share the moment. His evidence to the Committee was telling and was closely reflected in the speech by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). His testimony laid great emphasis on the urban dereliction in his constituency and he wrote of the imperative of creating penalties to deter green-field development and incentives to promote inner-city development.
I take seriously the warning by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire about green-field tax, but I believe that the Government should look positively on incentives to make inner cities habitable again. For that reason, I share the Committee's concern that Lord Rogers's task force should not be used as a means of causing delay. As the House-Builders Federation advocated in a helpful note that I received this morning, measures should be introduced long before we see Lord Rogers's report next year.
I regret that to date the Government have gone for a rather miserly proposed target of 60 per cent. of development taking place on brown-field sites, to be achieved over 10 years. I welcome the Committee's recommendations that the target should be at least 60 per cent., and should be applied during the coming round of regional planning guidance rather than over 10 years.
I noted with interest that the Committee said that there would be regional variations, and that in some regions brown-field development could be close to 100 per cent. but that in all regions it should be at least 40 per cent. If that became Government policy it would be good news for the people of north Hampshire. If borough officials are right in saying that brown-field sites to accommodate even 40 per cent. of the proposed development cannot be found, such a target would require either a significant lowering of the county's requirement for new housing, or a fundamental redistribution of new housing within the county. I suspect that even with that, 40 per cent. could not be achieved. The county council is right to urge the Government not to force the 56,000 houses on us but to look for a lower figure; 42,000, which is itself a considerable number, is the target it advocates.
I share the Committee's conclusion that most new homes should be built in suitable urban areas, that brown-field sites or converted buildings should be used, and that the provision of green-field sites for development must be severely restricted.
I shall throw out a word of caution about edge-of-town development. There are two dangers associated with it. West of Basingstoke there is an outline proposal to build 5,000 or so houses, and the provisional plans show an uneconomic use of land. It is imperative that if we go in for significant amounts of edge-of-town development, the land must be used economically. The example of Poundbury, with an accommodation density of 15 or 20 units per acre, shows that it is not necessary for excessive quantities of land to be used. That should be borne in mind when edge-of-town development is being considered.
The second danger associated with edge-of-town development is that people may be encouraged to think that it will not generate traffic. That is not so, and it will not be so in the north of Hampshire, in the greater M4—Thames corridor.
We have high employment, at least at the moment, and a highly skilled work force. High employment encourages job mobility, and people are prepared to drive 30 or even 50 miles to their places of work. If the current plans proceed, and about 15,000 houses are built around Basingstoke, it will be wrong to imagine that most of the people living in them will necessarily work in the town of Basingstoke. Traffic will be generated as they travel to their employment in various parts of the greater area.
I welcome the fact that the report has raised these issues, and I hope that the Government will reflect the Committee's recommendations in their policy decisions. I also hope that their wider response on housing and planning will extend to reversing damaging decisions that have already been made and giving unqualified protection to the green belt, and that they will commit themselves to a target of at least 60 per cent. for brown-field development.

Mr. Graham Stringer: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have been called in this debate as well as in the previous debate on the future of the countryside. What characterised both debates, and the considerations of the Select Committee, was an increasing consensus among the political parties, the professionals giving evidence to the Committee, and even the Government in their response to the report, that the future protection of the countryside is intimately related to the protection of cities and towns. Urban renaissance depends on keeping the countryside as the countryside.
My only quibble with my right hon. and hon. Friends in government is over the speed at which things should happen. I know the north-west better than the areas that Opposition Members have talked about, so I shall use it as my example. At a stroke—I hate using that phrase, because of its political pedigree—one could, by announcing that there would be no future housing developments on green-field sites, give Manchester, Liverpool and the other towns in the north-west the biggest boost imaginable.
There is an alternative to an urban renaissance, and it is the urban dark ages. The future of our cities is on the cusp, on the edge, and immediate action is needed to make the developers who have invested their money in turnip fields and grass in the areas around our cities dedicate that money, and their creative resources, to the cities.
Fields are bought up by the big housing developers as land banks for programmes that will go on for 30 years. While those resources are tied up in the countryside, the developers are not bringing their ingenuity and their contributions into the cities. Eventually, if they are allowed to concrete over the countryside, they will severely damage it. We want what people who watch American football call a "hurry up" offence.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). My constituency is in almost exactly the same socio-economic category as Salford, and I would like to deal in detail with the mechanisms that lead to the problems in the terraced streets. If we understand those mechanisms, some solutions can be applied fairly quickly.
One of the housing facilities in my constituency is not voluntary; it is called Strangeways. It is possible for somebody to come out of Strangeways, collect his money

and set up as a private landlord. He will buy a house in a terraced street and get somebody—preferably, from his point of view, an undesirable neighbour—to rent it.
The landlord will get a capital return on the house within two or three years, sometimes less. If he puts his anti-social friends in, he can drive property prices down so that eventually nobody wants to live on either side of the whole of a terraced street. Such people can drive the prices of houses that cost £30,000 or £35,000 in the late 1980s down to £3,000 or £4,000. They then buy up the street. Nobody wants to live there, but housing benefit pays for the people who do live there. The local authority then has the problem of compulsorily purchasing the houses at values three or four years out of date.
There must be a solution that stops public money being used to destroy parts of our inner cities. I do not believe that any other service comparable to the private rented sector is so completely deregulated. People can come out of prison and do what I have described. They are providing a service, and there is no recourse for tenants apart from the courts.
We need a body like the one that oversees housing associations to regulate landlords and stop undesirables, as we do with publicans. To sell us a pint of beer somebody has to be of good character, but anybody can make people's lives miserable by becoming a private landlord. We need regulation and bodies for people to go to that will stop all that.
I do not want to pretend that all private landlords are bad; they are not. However, there are some operating in my constituency and other constituencies in Manchester and Salford, such as Madina, who make real efforts to drive house prices down.
Adjacent to terraced houses in my constituency—which are becoming increasingly difficult to let and which need Government action—there are council houses which are also difficult to let for similar reasons. Manchester city council is considering a proposal to knock down an estate where, only three or four years ago, families were living happily, and some families had been there for 22 years, since the estate was built. What happened? About three years ago, a group of drug dealers got on to the estate, and all who could move out did so. The local authority is considering demolishing the whole lot. I hope that it reconsiders.
One of the reasons why the families moved out was that it took the local authority—which is good on these matters, and is better than many others—18 months to get the people out. There is no mandatory right for a local authority to get rid of the worst tenants, and we need a change in the law to provide that right. The proposals from the housing department in Manchester and from my colleagues when I was on the city council—to have provisional or probationary tenancies—have been unpopular in the housing world. We sponsored that idea for housing associations, and we want it for council tenants.
I never thought that I would stand up in this Chamber to ask for less security of tenure for council house tenants. However, in estates in my constituency and most other inner-city constituencies one will find that tenants want the security of having the ability to evict those people who make their lives miserable, either by selling drugs or by other forms of anti-social behaviour. We need to change the rules; that will make a big and immediate difference in the city.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and other hon. Members that cities are the future of this country. It will grow and thrive economically only if we make the cities work. If we neglect them, as we have done in the past, the whole economy and the whole of our society will fall into decline. We have to start, and there are things that we can do immediately. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will take action as soon as possible.

Mr. Howard Flight: I was privileged to serve on the Committee and I pay tribute to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and other colleagues with whom I worked. This is an important report which I hope receives better coverage in the media. The report is about an absolutely crucial subject to all of us and, as many have commented, the view reached was largely bipartisan. I do not think that this is fundamentally a party political issue.
I wish to refer to some issues which, perhaps, were not greatly focused on in the report. The first is the rather crude macro-point that putting one third of all new housing and further economic concentration in the south-east is not acceptable in the long term. However, anyone who takes that view must accept that the market must be allowed to operate to some extent to make it more attractive for business to go elsewhere. Simply, if we restrict supply, house prices will rise, and that will have an economic impetus in terms of what companies do and where they locate. As the Committee Chairman pointed out, there is a lot of trying to have one's cake and eat it. Local authorities want economic development, but not the housing. The other side of that is that one must allow the market to operate if we are not to restrict supply.
I am in the camp that is somewhat sceptical about the numbers. We are talking about a long time ahead to be predicting. The figures are trend-based, and who is to say that trends will stay the same? There are many other areas of activity where trends have changed dramatically. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to the growth in cohabiting and the assumptions of massive net immigration to this country. Some 80 per cent. of the growth is projected to be made up of single-person households. However, a recent important survey of young people showed that 84 per cent of 20-year-olds want to get married and have a normal family unit. If anything, they were reacting against some recent trends.
The Government are laying down the figures too much—it is all slightly "1984". It is convenient for bureaucrats and developers to have plenty of scope—say, five years forward—to organise. I believe that supply is, to an extent, creating demand. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made that point in referring to the destruction of the value and usage of perfectly good traditional terraced houses.
I hope that we are not changing the buzz words from "predict and provide" to
"plan, manage and monitor". I welcome the White Paper, but I have seen nothing that amounts to a fundamental change. We are still playing the old game of "predict a number" 20 years forward. We will need more flexible management of the numbers if we are to fine-tune the system.
I had a long conversation with the executive of Redland who is responsible for the company's derelict land. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of urban land for redevelopment. The company wants to sell the land, but there is a planning nightmare because it is still a zone for industrial usage. Many authorities do not have their structural plans in place, and there is a five-year agony in trying to get planning permission. The system needs a bomb under it. There is masses of such land and there are willing sellers. However, many of the inefficiencies of the planning process stand in the way of getting the land used.
In my constituency in West Sussex, we suffer from the green belt—it restricts building, as it were, in Surrey and tips it over the border into West Sussex. There is a pull-push between the two counties. One might suggest that, for larger cities in the south, the answer could be to extend the radius of the green belt from 35 miles to 80 miles. At present, we have had an explosion of far-distant dormitory rural suburbia—almost the worst possible result for the future.
Architecture is terribly important, and Poundbury has been cited. The report was critical of new settlements, but if one goes to Bath, one cannot criticise a "new settlement" which was built 200 years ago. How is it that, 200 years later, we are not capable of building a beautiful, substantial new city? Surely we must be able to do that. Design and architecture matters should not completely rule out new settlements.
In my part of the world, there is an extremely competent county council—both its civil servants and its political representatives—and I am extremely sceptical and concerned lest power move even further from the county councils and cities with which people identify to regional development agencies and Government regional offices.
I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister really intended to approve those extra houses for West Sussex. I believe that the Government office for the south-east took the decision because it was concerned that it would set a dangerous precedent for other counties. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister may not have been fully aware of all the implications when he gave his approval. I make a plea to the Government to try to find a face-saving way of reviewing the decision. The Government know that the courts rejected the judicial review on a matter of law concerning the Government's power, not on whether it was a good decision.
The report found six important territories contravening the decision. It rightly recommends that a detailed environmental sustainability appraisal
should be at he centre of planning policy before starting. West Sussex has been a pioneer of that, as we know. One has to have proper consideration, consultation and examination in public to support the structural plan, with full cross-examination. West Sussex was the only authority to do that.
The report calls on central Government to support local authorities and not to undermine them in restricting development on green-field sites. West Sussex has moved from 60 per cent. brown to 60 per cent. green, on the increase in the figures—an area that has already more than doubled its population in the past 25 years. Also, West Sussex has a huge water supply problem. In the summer, we have water rationing and water levels are sinking, with many lakes drying up. Long term, there is no evidence that we will have sufficient water.
The report cites the bottom-up approach. As the Minister knows, 45,000 people in West Sussex have signed four or five petitions—people of all political parties. Is not that approach in line with getting the in-depth views of the community?
Finally, on travel, what is known as the Cinderella line runs down to Arundel, and long may it so remain as it has preserved the southern half of West Sussex from being a commuter area. Only in the east of the area do we have such a travel facility.
Let us forget the party politics. I ask the Government to find a discreet way to review the decision. We do not want pious words and good intentions. Let us really try to make it happen.
The report highlights six key issues. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, there is an urgent need for intermediate Government guidance on the redemption of contaminated land. I happen to know of some land in Somerset that was banned because it was contaminated, even though the metal found was in fact from the Stone age.
Another issue is the importance of getting a move on and implementing the 60 per cent. target now rather than over 10 years. Let us copy the French and get a move on to redefine conversions for value added tax. It cannot be that difficult. Let us also allow local authorities' structural plans to restrict migrants. Finally, there is no need to be in a hurry ahead of Lord Rogers' report. Those are the key issues on which we should get a move on, and they have cross-party support.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: We are discussing one of the most crucial issues to confront Members of Parliament. I feel sorry for the Minister in some ways when I consider what we are trying to do. We have to regenerate our cities and stop the degeneration that is taking place. We must protect our green fields and countryside. However, at the same time we must meet housing need. Looked at in that way, it is a challenging task.
Alongside that task, policies on transport, crime prevention, public service provision, the environment in general and employment must be developed. That is the nature of the task and without such associated policies the urban regeneration that we want simply will not take place. It cannot take place in a vacuum—the Select Committee Report, which is good, made that important point.
The report builds on the guidelines in the Government's paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", recognising that new policies are necessary. The Government recently published their response to the Select Committee report, which demonstrates that they are not static, but are responding to the arguments with fresh thinking and a willingness to move forward. The new policies, when fully in place, will represent a truly radical change in planning—I think of that famous phrase, "joined-up policies"—and will be a tribute to the Government.
However, as the Minister knows, the transition from one set of planning policies to another is the problem and it is causing many of us to receive a significant number of letters in our post bags. The Minister knows

Nottinghamshire well and I thank him for coming there to talk to local authorities and Members of Parliament about our problems. Our structure plan dates back to 1996 and was agreed according to the policies of the past. Having been allocated housing figures, the districts are busy identifying land to meet them.
Gedling borough council is running a public consultation exercise to explain the process, but people in such areas as New Farm and Stockings Farm in Redhill are concerned that inappropriate development on green-field sites will take place despite the changed approach reflected in the Select Committee report and the Government's new policies. My constituents often tell me that they hear that policies have changed nationally, but that the change is not having the impact that they want locally. In fact, some of the old policies and guidelines are still being used, which makes little sense to them—or sometimes to me, either.
The Minister has responded to such concern by telling Nottinghamshire local authorities that they can reallocate some of the housing between themselves if they can reach agreement; I thank him for doing so. However, it is difficult for them because the new policies are not in place. For example, Nottingham city council wants to build new houses, reclaim derelict land, convert offices and old factories to housing, use space above shops and so forth, as I am sure councils in Manchester, Glasgow and all our other cities wish to do. Under the existing financial regime, that is difficult. There must be changes in taxation so that we can regenerate Nottingham and our other cities and, at the same time, protect green-field sites where appropriate. Furthermore, in Nottinghamshire the changes that we need in taxation and grant policies have a bearing on some of the old coalfield and industrial areas. Without the changes, 4.4 million five-bedroom houses will be built to meet the need for 4.4 million households; and houses that would meet people's needs in city areas will not be built.
The Select Committee report draws attention, at page 83—it is actually written in roman numerals and I had to look it up to ensure that I did not make an idiot of myself—paragraph 278 to the fact that the Department has always wanted to ensure
that sufficient land is available at all times at the expense of so many of its other policies, for example on sustainable development, transport, the environment and the use of recycled land.
The Select Committee and the Government are saying that we need a phased release of land to ensure that an adequate amount of brown-field and, where appropriate, green-field land is available. Sequential planning is crucial to ensure that the brown-field sites are developed first and that developers do not take the easy option of using green-field sites—that is what they will do if we leave it to them.
The central problem, particularly in Gedling and in Nottinghamshire in general, is speed, which is of the essence. While I understand the difficulties of moving from one set of policies to another, we are in the transitional phase and the old policies seem to be grinding on. Paragraph 270 of the Select Committee report states:
There is no need to hurry into granting planning permission for greenfield development before Lord Rogers' Task Force has reported on the scope for using recycled land before PPG3 and PPG13 have been revised and before the implications of the Integrated Transport White Paper are taken into account.
All those matters are crucial if we are to meet our policy objectives.
I know that the Minister is doing all he can and that he is aware of the problems. Our policies are changing and moving forward. As I said, we must ensure that all the joined-up policies are working together. In some ways, it does not matter who is in government—this is a difficult issue. However, we have a new Government bringing in new thinking and new policies to meet the challenge. If that challenge is met, our cities will be regenerated, our green-field sites will be protected, and there will have been a truly radical change on which the Government can look back with pride.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I do not want to rehearse what has been said, but I shall add one or two points. The report is extremely valuable and the debate is timely. The question is not so much the number of new homes—we have yet to find out how far future trends will be a reflection of the past—as what, in planning terms, a bottom-up approach means in practice.
On the old predict-and-provide approach, there would be 71,000 additional commitments in Cambridgeshire, but only 25 to 30 per cent. of that number can be provided by using recycled land and windfall opportunities. If the minimum commitment is 40 per cent., we shall not, on the example of Cambridgeshire, be able to build 4.4 million new homes.
On the bottom-up approach, South Cambridgeshire district council rightly responded to the draft regional planning guidance by undertaking an environmental capacity study, which considered those matters mentioned in the report—environmental sustainability, transport infrastructure, water resources and the infrastructure of public services. It makes little sense to propose, over the 20 years from 1995, a 40 per cent. increase in the number of new homes in a district that is already the fastest growing in the country. A bottom-up approach is not only about who makes the decisions, although that is important, but about the method by which one arrives at the numbers and decides where the new houses should be built.
Even if there were nil growth in the area and no net migration, the affordable housing proposals would give rise to 13,000 extra commitments. If we constrain supply, we must find a more consistent way in which to sustain affordable housing so that local people are not driven out. What is the point of social housing if not to reinforce people's opportunities to stay in their familiar community structures?
I am unhappy at the thought that the green belt should be pushed further out to prevent the creation of dormitory communities. In my area, the green belt exists not only to protect the rural villages outside Cambridge; it protects the city itself. If the green belt is pushed out as a result of new building on its inner edge, the historic city centre will be destroyed. The Committee's recommendation that we should focus on building in urban areas does not always apply. For example, Cambridge's historic characteristics would be destroyed if we were to allow urban sprawl or excessive urban density.
We must consider other mechanisms, which will vary from place to place. In Cambridgeshire and parts of East Anglia, we may have to look constructively at the role of market towns. Where development is proposed, we shall have to consider the public transport options.
I am concerned about the decision-making mechanisms, despite the Government's talk about decentralisation and taking decisions closer to the people. The draft regional planning guidance from the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities will be put forward for public examination in February—it will be the first such public examination. However, as we shall not have the new draft PPG3—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—what is the point of the public examination? How can we know how the new tests are to be applied?
I do not agree with everything in SCEALA's draft guidance, but it is better that such documents should be agreed by locally elected representatives than be comprehensively second-guessed by independent panels. We may know who is on the panel, but what is the rationale behind having a panel that overturns the decisions of locally elected representatives only to hand back its structure plan to the county council that did not subscribe to it in the first place?
We must apply the bottom-up approach to ensure that local democracy generates the answers and that factors other than predict and provide are taken into account. We must take on board all the integral factors to find out how many new homes can be accommodated without destroying the environment of the area for which the planning was intended to provide a solution.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I fail to recognise the green-crusader credentials of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I remember desperately attempting, as a local authority leader during most of the time in which the Conservatives were in government, to combat out-of-town shopping developments, only to find that the then Secretary of State for the Environment was giving out planning permission like confetti, with the results that we see today. I hope that the Conservative party has changed its tune, but I fear that, in the long term, it has not.
I also failed to recognise Conservative Members' descriptions of the report as an attack on the Government. The report strongly supports much of what the Government are doing. Indeed, I was delighted at the Government's response, which endorsed and took further much of what the Committee said.
The projection of 4.4 million extra households between 1991–2016 is robust. As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) confirmed, members of the Committee looked up to the figures—they may not be entirely accurate and there may have to be changes, but, essentially, we believe that they are robust. When the Government said that they wanted to end predict and provide, the response from some quarters was that the 4.4 million figure was no longer important and that people could do their own thing regardless of any overall effect on housing need. That response was misplaced.
Our understanding of how the figures work has changed—for example, we know that windfall sites are much more important than was thought. Nevertheless, it is important that figures on future housing need retain some shape; if they do not, we shall all live to regret it.
The 4.4 million houses should, ideally, be built on brown-field land—the Government's target is that 60 per cent. should be built on recycled land. In the early 1990s,


30 per cent. of completions on brown-field sites were outside urban areas, so we must be wary of the figures—brown field is not simply, as the Government know, an alternative to green field. We should add another dimension to the concept and specify that the brown field is urban—we should be looking at brown field sites in urban areas. As we have heard, there is a case for different targets in different parts of the country.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Whitehead: I am sorry, but, because of the lack of time, I will not give way.
What do we mean by urban? A local authority boundary does not determine what is urban. The real footprint of a city is often outside its local authority boundaries. Local authorities must collaborate in deciding how housing should be placed in urban areas. People cannot point to a city centre and say that that local authority should build all the houses. It needs collaboration between authorities and I regret that, in certain parts of the country, that collaboration on decision making does not seem to be present.
On social housing, our report mentions our concern that there appears to be a considerable gap between likely provision and likely need. I am disappointed by the Government's response to the issue of social housing. We shall not be able to build new social housing by relying only on the private sector and private letting, or by relying on planning gain or local authorities overwhelmingly putting money into keeping their housing stock going—important though that is. We need more social housing to be built and we need an accurate understanding of the figures in order to understand how the Housing Corporation can be funded and how local authorities can respond.
I know that the Government are currently reworking the research figures. I ask them to ensure that those figures are produced shortly so that we have an accurate fix on what we need for social housing. It needs to be dealt with urgently. If we get the figures wrong, the people involved cannot just go somewhere else in the market; they will have nowhere to live. We all have a responsibility to get that part of the equation right, together with all the other parts.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Even if the Select Committee regarded the Government's paper as being somewhat vague, nobody could accuse the Committee of having produced a vague report. I believe that both sides of the House feel that the Committee has produced a comprehensive and interesting report with a number of thought-provoking ideas.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I am extremely concerned about the implications for Hampshire of the dispute between the county's view, which proposes 42,000 houses as the requirement to meet the county's domestic need, and the belief of the unitary authorities in Portsmouth and Southampton that 56,000 houses, as proposed by the Government, are necessary to meet the needs of incomers as well as the county's domestic requirements. I understand that there is to be a meeting with the Secretary

of State next week. I hope that he will be able to resolve the matter so that we can get on with it. It is clear that it would be much better for Hampshire if any proposed new planning policies could be introduced quickly. If they are not, the loss of green-field sites will continue and the resulting chaos will be regretted in the rural areas of Hampshire that are currently under threat. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
The report talks about the concept of environmental capacity. I understand that the Government are reasonably receptive to that concept, but there is no real guidance on what that means and how it can be applied. We have to consider whether we can regard an area as being full up. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) mentioned the pressures in her area. All of us in the south-east are subject to enormous pressure. There will come a time when we have to decide whether an area is full up.
The recent experience of West Sussex is not very inspiring in that respect. The county council lost its judicial review in the High Court because the Secretary of State has discretionary powers. Although the county council had prepared an environmental capacity study, the Secretary of State said that it was flawed. How do we know that it was flawed? The county also claimed that further housing growth would seriously jeopardise its rural environment, and designated areas received much sympathy from the presiding judge. However, he held that the law was on the side of the Secretary of State and that he could do nothing to help. The county has had to appeal to the House of Lords.
The time has come when we have to decide that an area is full and that its services and environment cannot take any further expansion. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that this is a case where the market really can apply. If prices rise to a sufficient level, people will be forced to go elsewhere. That will be of benefit to other parts of the country, that are looking for economic and social development, which will not happen if we continue to concrete over the whole of the south-east and those areas that are currently under pressure. If that were to happen, the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer)—he made some interesting comments about the inner cities—would be met as well. The inner cities would become much more attractive because the developers would not be able to place their money anywhere else and the cities would become somewhere to invest and make a useful return.
That brings me to an important point that the Committee made in paragraph 246. It said that local authorities
should also adopt a helpful and imaginative approach to proposals for urban developments, particularly in respect of their density, layout and the number of car parking spaces they require.
I endorse that strongly. Rushmoor borough council in Aldershot has done a tremendous job and put that into practice already. A big site by the railway station could have been used for a supermarket, but, instead, 200 flats and houses were built there. The number of car parks allocated for those units was half that applied elsewhere. That is one practical suggestion from the Committee that is being put into practice and which should be put into practice elsewhere in the country.

Mr. David Drew: Given the shortage of time, I shall be brief. I congratulate the Select Committee on taking on such a challenging topic and producing such a comprehensive report. Despite what the Opposition spokesman said, I believe that the Government produced a full response, which follows on from the White Paper by explaining how Government policy will take things forward.
I want to talk about housing numbers. Some of us on the Labour Benches continue to challenge the numbers, but we realise that there are problems in so doing. We would like to see the Government's proposal for a six-stage scheme as an alternative to the trend-based forecast put into play as soon as possible. It gives an alternative a chance and gives people who want to see bottom-up planning some confidence that alternatives can be put in place.
There are some people who believe that circular projections—the self-fulfilling prophesy that people will move into the houses that are being built—cannot be tracked nationally, but they can operate locally. I support the emphasis on a regional approach. We have not yet seen the competence of real regional emphasis. There will be a need to provide proper guidance and the proper level of support for that to operate effectively.
The Select Committee report makes much of the difference of opinion between those who see the problem as being one of too much housing land and those who think that there is too little. That is simply due to a dysfunction in the provision of housing. We cannot pretend that there is much in common between the market for housing and the provision of affordable and, more particularly, social housing. We must face up to those problems. They are not two sides of the same problem.
I now want to deal with phasing sequential planning and brown-field development. I urge the Government to be a little braver. Rather than saying that they are just looking at the ending of a five-year land supply, they should accept that there are considerable merits in protecting green-field sites and forcing the sequential principle forward.
There is much that we can do to look at alternative places to build in rural Britain. The "Planning and Affordable Housing" document does not get much publicity, but I am pleased to see it. It ends the threshold, which means that in small village communities, social housing can be provided as part of the overall number of houses. We no longer have to have a minimum of 20 or 25 houses before insisting on a developer taking some interest.
Economic measures are important. The proposal for a green-field levy is worth investigating and testing properly and I was interested to note that a report by the Civic Trust suggested that the concept had merit. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, hypothecation could allow urban regeneration and, at the same time, we could deal with council tax anomalies, not least of which is the second home problem. Although Members of Parliament gain from the current position, it has an appalling effect on many rural areas. We have had a good debate and the issues have been well aired. The report is timely and I commend the Government on their response to it.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is my neighbour in Gloucestershire. I endorse his comments about predictions of the number of houses that will be required, because I also have doubts about them. Trends change, including the divorce rate, the number of people living alone, the age at which young people leave home and other factors affecting mobility, which makes the figure questionable to say the least.
To address the need for houses is to ignore the need to protect the countryside. I am as aware as anybody of the need to provide homes for people, because, before I entered the House, I carried out a large project for the homeless. They were homeless not because they could not find homes to buy, but for other social reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, if we continue to build at the current rate, the countryside will fill up. When that happens, will we then try to provide homes in a more sustainable manner? If so, why not address the problem now?
The word "sustainability" is over-used and under-obeyed, but the Government should interpret it to mean providing for the needs of today's generation without prejudicing or compromising the needs of future generations. To protect future generations, we must take a radical approach now and not merely pay lip service to sustainability. Destroying the countryside—and creating increased traffic and social problems—while ignoring the needs of inner cities and town centres, is not sustainable.
The pressure to build more and more houses causes many problems in Tewkesbury, which has been forced to accommodate far more than its fair share of housing recently. That has led to the destruction of several attractive villages. Part of the reason is the difficulty that some districts have in providing brown-field sites. Pressure to build in Tewkesbury has led to land that had been declared unsuitable being reconsidered. For example, people's allotments and green-field sites have been built on, and other land, which if built on would lead to villages coalescing, is now being considered for the same fate. I endorse the comments made by the Council for the Protection of Rural England that the local environment must be taken into account when building in rural areas. Sustainability means developing brown-field sites and derelict sites and empty and old buildings, not destroying the countryside and ruining lives.
I do not wish to be party political, but I believe that the Government's policy is inadequate. The Government adopted the previous Government's projected figure, but they did not need to do so. The Government have set up regional agencies without giving them the full responsibility to protect the environment and have also set a worryingly low target for building on brown-field sites. Regardless of party politics, the planning of the building of new houses needs a radical rethink if it is to be sustainable.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate members of the Select Committee on their useful and timely report. I am delighted that the Government are able to agree with many of the Committee's conclusions; that is reflected in our response to the report. I also


congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Committee. As the former Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, I know how difficult it can be to obtain unanimity—I say that from experience and with some bruises—but only unanimous reports carry real weight. This report is unanimous, and must be taken seriously.
The underlying message from the Committee is clear: we must face the fact that people must have an opportunity to live in decent homes. Not before time, we have a growing cross-party consensus on how to plan future house building in a sustainable way that drives the urban renaissance agenda. A clear consensus on that has emerged tonight.
It is not a matter of green-field versus brown-field sites, urban versus rural or country versus town. The Government's response makes it clear that we must rise above NIMBYism, although some hon. Members have tried to draw the drawbridge up tonight to protect their villages. The contribution by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for the official Opposition did not show much consensus, and there were a couple of other exceptions, but I hope that we can take the political opportunity to stop urban decay and the urban flight. If we can do so, we can solve many of the problems that have been highlighted tonight.

Mr. Flight: The rural flight.

Mr. Caborn: No, I mean the urban flight to rural areas. The hon. Gentleman should think about the situation.
The Government accept the key recommendation by the Select Committee, that we should publish an urban White Paper. We share the view that, by revitalising and regenerating our towns and cities, and creating an urban renaissance, we will take the pressure off the countryside and bridge the housing gap between the haves and the have-nots.
The household projection figures have been one of the main topics of discussion tonight. The Committee last looked at the issue in 1995–96, when it broadly accepted the methodology, and I welcome the fact that the confidence in it has been reaffirmed. I hope that we can put to bed for good the fruitless arguments about the figures. The Government have tried to be as helpful as possible about the next set of projections. The Committee recommended that
the Government publish with the next national household projections an analysis which shows the effect of small changes in the assumptions underlying the projections.
In response, the Government state:
The Department notes the recommendation and will publish suitable sensitivity analyses alongside the next set of household projections.
It is in everybody's interest to ensure that the figures are understood, and the analysis accepted.
I welcome the Committee's support for our national land recycling target of 60 per cent. I do not know where some hon. Members have been for the past 18 years, but if we hit 60 per cent., it will be 10 per cent. better than the Conservatives did in their 18 years. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has attacked us, although we have been in government for 18 months, but the analysis of brown-field utilisation that we shall publish in a few days' time will prove acceptable.
We accept that there is more to be done. We intend that the regions should establish their own targets through regional planning guidance. I expect them to engage in that process with some urgency. I agree with much of what has been said. That problem will be resolved not in Whitehall, but in the regions and local towns.
The Government are trying to introduce innovatory ideas. The millennium village is on a contaminated site at Greenwich, and my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction tells me that that site received an award last night for the decontamination work done there. We are looking into the problems left at Allerton Bywater by the rundown of the mining industry. We are trying to increase the size of that village to give it some economy of scale. We want to resolve the problem without people having to move out. We are trying, in innovative ways, to bring brown fields back into use and to introduce better planning. We will genuinely try to hit the 60 per cent. target.
I welcome the Committee's support for our approach to the provision of regional housing. The regional planning conferences have an essential role to play. We intend to set out a timetable for production of regional planning guidance, and we expect the regions to stick to it and to produce responsible and realistic plans for accommodating housing requirements in their areas. There must be certainty. Everyone says that certainty is needed in the planning regime. Central to that certainty will be having everyone in the planning system adhering to the timetables that we shall evolve after consultation with the parties involved.
We are keen to maintain momentum towards decentralisation of power. As the Committee's report stresses, power comes with responsibility. We genuinely want to devolve powers to the regions so that we can have a bottom-up process. The same is true of local plans. We must respond to the challenges to the Government and to society.
Let me turn to the way forward. Our policy statement last February made it clear that our first choice for new development is that it should be on previously developed land, preferably in urban areas. That sequential approach is long overdue, and we want authorities to explore options fully before they propose urban extensions or the release of other green-field sites. That will be covered more extensively by the revised PPG3.
The Select Committee rightly posed more detailed questions about how we will deliver. Let me fill in some of the gaps. As our response to the Committee makes clear, we have embarked already on an extensive programme of policy initiatives, as set out in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" and "Modernising Planning".
The urban task force, under the guidance of Lord Rogers, is examining the difficulties of redeveloping our urban areas, which have been graphically described, particularly from my side of the House. The task force contains a broad range of expertise drawn from all the professions involved in the debate, from developers to environmentalists. We look forward to receiving Lord Rogers's report in the first half of next year, but he has made it clear this week that he will produce an interim report at the turn of the year.
Work on compiling the national land use database—the equivalent of a Domesday register for the 21st century—is already well under way. The initial results are due next


March. It is gathering on-line data about every previously developed site in the country, and I assure the House that that is no mean feat. We will soon know how many previously developed sites there are, and we shall be able to keep that information up to date. Rather than speculate about the ability to reuse brown-field land, we shall shortly have factual information to inform our land recycling policy.
We have a full programme of revision for planning policy guidance. Our response to the Select Committee refers a number of times to the updating of the guidance note on housing, known as PPG3. We are grateful for the Committee's proposals on that document, and we shall factor them into our considerations. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will be the first to have a public examination. I intend to produce PPG3 before that, hopefully by the turn of the year. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will appear at the public examination, and I will ensure that he has the revised PPG3 in his hands.
We are working on other planning guidance, such as the notes on transport, spatial planning and regional planning. We are also working on issues such as compulsory purchase and the use of economic instruments. We need a comprehensive approach, so that we can answer serious structural weaknesses in this part of society.
It has been made clear this evening that we need an holistic approach to urban housing policy. The problems will not be solved through the planning process alone. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was able to announce on Tuesday that the Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendation to publish an urban White Paper. We expect to do so next year.
It is 20 years since there was an urban White Paper. My right hon. Friend remembers it well, because he was parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State, Peter Shore—now Lord Shore—and he was deeply involved in that paper. Regrettably, the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s failed to advance many of the ideas that flowed from the White Paper.
Debates on Select Committee reports must be kept above party politics, but we have heard a little hypocrisy in the debate. Lord Tebbit used to say, "Get on your bike,

come to the south-east and go to where the jobs are." People came, but now the Conservatives complain because we have to house them. Lord Tebbit has not spoken tonight, but he spoke volumes years ago, and we are grappling with the problems he left us. The overheating of the south-east arises from the type of economic policies pursued by previous Administrations.
The Labour Government have a new vision for a new set of urban issues. We seek thriving communities that provide jobs and provide homes that are attractive and pleasant to live in. We are determined to drive an urban renaissance. We are determined to turn our cities back into places where people want to work, live and play. The urban White Paper will link key strands of Government vision for an urban renaissance. It will embrace our programmes for education, employment, health, housing, the problem of social exclusion and transport. It will be the most comprehensive and far-sighted programme of urban renewal since our last White Paper in the 1970s.
It has always been Labour Governments who have addressed the real problems of land use planning. It is 50 years since a Labour Government put the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 on to the statute book. It was a Labour Government who introduced the national parks. It was a Labour Government who introduced the green belt. All that the previous Administration did was to take concrete mixers to build out-of-town shopping centres, and allow more development on green belt and green-field sites than any other Administration ever allowed.
I welcome the report.

Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Traditionally, at the end of debates such as this, the Chairman of the Select Committee responds to fill up a bit of time. However, there is virtually no time left over, so I will just thank the Minister for his responses, both in writing and at the Dispatch Box.
I thank, too, all those who participated in the debate, particularly those hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee. Too often, debates on Select Committee reports involve the members of the Committee talking about their own report. It was refreshing to hear that so many other hon. Members had taken the trouble to read the report and to participate. I regret that there was not enough time to allow everyone to speak who wanted to.

European Structural Funds

[Relevant documents: Seventh report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1997–98, on Reform of European Structural Funds (HC 697), and the Government's response thereto of 11 September.]

Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to open this debate on the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on the reform of European structural funds. I do so only because my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who chairs the Committee, is unable to be present this evening. He asked me to convey his apologies to the House.
First, I wish to place on record the Committee's thanks to the Clerk and his colleagues, Professor lain Begg of South Bank university, who has provided us with expert assistance and lots of statistics, and all those who gave written or oral evidence. I am mindful of Madam Speaker's earlier request for brevity, and I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall confine my remarks to a few key issues in both the report and the Government's response.
It is important to see the current renegotiation of the structural funds in context. The funds are the principal instrument of EU regional policy whereby it seeks to reduce regional inequalities, or, as we tend now to say, to promote economic and social cohesion, which seems to me to be essentially the same thing. The current negotiations on the structural funds, the cohesion fund and, indeed, the Community initiatives, are part of the overhaul of EU finances that was initiated by the publication in July last year of Agenda 2000.
The most significant feature of the current discussions about the reform of the structural funds is that they are taking place in much more difficult circumstances than the negotiations on previous reforms. For example, the EU is facing a difficult economic environment, not least characterised by high levels of unemployment. It is embarking on enlargement to the east, with potential EU members being significantly less well off than current members, so more likely to need structural fund assistance.
There is a growing reluctance by net contributing states to continue contributions on the same scale, so there will be only modest increases in resources to promote economic and social cohesion—roughly rising in line with EU GDP. Yet, at the same time, there is a growing awareness of the availability of European funding, so there is increased demand. In the past, structural funds have increased substantially, both in scope and in scale, as the EU has evolved. That will no longer be the case. Therefore, the current re-evaluation of structural fund policy is no easy task, as I am sure the Minister will advise the House.
The Commission's most important proposals are of concern to all of us. The aims are to reduce the number of objectives from seven to three; to reduce Community initiatives from 14 to three; to concentrate funds by greater geographical targeting; in relation to objective 1, to apply the current criterion based on per capita GDP of below 75 per cent. of the European average, but without the existing flexibility; for regions facing major restructuring needs, to set a new objective 2, amalgamating current objectives 2 and 5b and incorporating a number of

Community initiatives with particular account being taken of the unemployment rate as the key criterion; and finally, to ensure that the budget for structural and cohesion policies is maintained at the planned 1999 level of 0.46 per cent. of EU GNP.
Allowing for funds committed for enlargement, this will mean an increased spending in real terms of from about 28 billion euros per annum in the current planning period to about 30 billion in the next. There is an increase in real terms roughly in line with GDP, but not a substantial one. It is not like past increases, when we saw the renegotiation of European structural funds. The circumstances are therefore difficult.
Before we consider the Commission's proposals in more detail, we need to address a basic question, which the Committee considered: what is the value of the process whereby member states contribute to a common pool and then get either less or more from that pool, with strings attached by Brussels? That question needs to be asked, and the Committee sought to answer it. Obviously, it is a form of redistribution in the right direction—from rich to poor—and is to be welcomed warmly. It is an important function of the exercise. It is a practical expression of economic and social cohesion at European level. However, the greater the subsidiarity, the more the involvement of European mechanisms must be justified.
The Committee considered that issue in our report, and identified a number of reasons why European funding of this kind has conferred many benefits. As we discovered from travelling around the country listening to people involved in partnerships using European funding, it has led to the growth of many extremely productive partnerships at local level, such as between local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors, the benefits of which should not be underestimated.
Nevertheless, the Committee was impressed by the general indifference of those we met who seek and spend funds as to the source of funding. Whether we were in Merseyside, Stockport or Chorley, the cause of concern was not so much where the money came from as that there should be money available. We made that modest observation in our report.
The Government's response was perfectly fair, reminding us that they believe, rightly, that allocations should be redistributive, and that member states with lower per capita GNP should get more than those with higher per capita GNP. I wholly support that. Redistribution is an important political objective. But with respect, the response slightly side-stepped our point—that those involved in coming up with programmes, projects and schemes that confer enormous economic and social benefits on their communities, and those who have developed partnerships between the local authority and the private and voluntary sectors, often feel that what matters is not the source but the availability of funding. It would have been inaccurate of the Committee not to note that point.
Concentration is a key issue, and is identified at a number of levels. I have already said that the proposal is to concentrate on three rather than seven objectives, and on three rather than 14 Community initiatives. There is to be concentration on areas of priority assistance. There is to be geographical concentration, so that the eligible population in new objective 1 and new objective 2 areas should be reduced from 51 per cent. of the EU population


to between 35 and 40 per cent. There is also a proposal for greater financial concentration, which effectively means giving greater priority to objective 1 regions.
The Committee's main concern, which I share, is the proposed increased geographical concentration. There is no obvious reason why increased geographical concentration is a good thing. If relative disadvantage or inequality happens to be widely spread in a spacial sense, there is a good reason to spread the resources to deal with it; so we on the Committee had some difficulty in understanding the emphasis on geographical concentration. Therefore, while we welcome more effective targeting of funds, we share the Government's concern that the current proposals would remove about 10 per cent. of EU citizens—37 million or 38 million people—from structural fund eligibility. We could find no justification for that.
The cohesion fund has taken on a life of its own. It will not be doing what it was intended to do. It was introduced following the Maastricht treaty to help the less prosperous member states with programmes designed to assist them to meet the convergence criteria for entry into economic and monetary union. Now, despite the fact that three of the four countries concerned—Ireland, Portugal and Spain—are to be in the first wave of EMU, having met the convergence criteria, it is proposed that the cohesion fund should continue for those countries for which it was originally set up. That is plainly absurd—probably the strongest expression that I am allowed to use in this Chamber.
The Committee shares the Government's view and that of a number of other member states that continuation of substantial funding from the cohesion fund for those joining the single currency simply cannot be reconciled with the original objectives of the fund. I look forward to the Minister advising the House what the Government, the House or anyone else can do about that extraordinary state of affairs.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Commission proposes that objective 1 will continue to assist regions where per capita GDP for the last three years for which figures are available is less than 75 per cent. of the EU average. Current objective 6 regions—those that are sparsely populated—will also be covered. It is proposed that objective 1 regions will continue to receive roughly two thirds of the funds.
The difference is that it is now suggested that no more than 20 per cent. of the EU population should be covered by objective 1, compared with about 25 per cent. at present, and that the previous flexibility around the 75 per cent. threshold should be eliminated. At the time of writing the report, the Committee understood that that was likely to mean that Merseyside would retain objective 1 status, that South Yorkshire would gain it, and that the highlands and islands and Northern Ireland would lose it, although we anticipated that the highlands and islands would regain it under the sparsity criteria hitherto used for objective 6, and that Northern Ireland would be regarded as a special case.
To eliminate the existing flexibility would in our view cause the United Kingdom particular difficulties. We are the fifth poorest member of the European Union in terms of per capita GDP, but we could lose because we do not

have the regional inequalities that exist, for example, in Italy or Germany. This is not special pleading: it is an important matter of principle. The Committee's concern was that the Commission's proposals could penalise poorer countries that had been relatively successful in reducing regional inequalities. For poorer countries to be penalised for achieving greater economic and social cohesion simply does not make sense; nor does the rigid application of the 75 per cent. threshold.
There is no correct statistical methodology for defining the boundaries of EU regions, drawing a line at those with per capita GDP of 75 per cent. of the average, and saying that those below lag behind and those above do not. This is not a statistical exercise; it is a matter of judgment.
I am not talking about the margins of error in a statistical sense, although they exist. The point is that it is simply not possible to replace judgment with an arbitrary statistical device. Therefore, the Committee strongly supports the Government's view that flexibility around the 75 per cent. threshold should continue. In our view, the Government must continue strenuously to question the strange attachment that the European Commission seems to have here, as elsewhere, to rigid and arbitrary criteria. There must be flexibility—a grey zone, as we have referred to it—to give potential but not absolute eligibility to a small number of regions that are on the margin, so that judgment can be exercised rationally.
The Office of National Statistics data were published today. The separation of Cornwall from Devon as a level 2 area is warmly to be welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is sitting here, so I have to refer to Cornwall. I was going to refer to the NUTS—nomenclature of territorial units for statistics—level 2 area, but perhaps sticking to level 2 is more appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister will bring the House up to date, I know, but it looks as if Cornwall will obtain objective 1 status, as will the new west Wales and the valleys level 2 area. That is to be welcomed.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Although my constituency is not in the objective 1 designated area, it is fair to say that there is an enormous welcome throughout Wales for the prospect that a substantial chunk of Wales will for the first time get objective 1 status. However, there is a specific problem, which I think is unique to Wales.
After devolution, working within the Barnett formula, any additional matching funds for the objective 1 bit of Wales could have to be provided by the new Welsh Assembly. It will have to borrow from Peter—the areas outside the objective 1 area—to pay Paul, unless the Treasury agrees to provide additional funds as the matching funds for the new objective 1 area. Did that matter come within the Select Committee's purview?

Mr. Berry: We did not consider that matter. The Minister may wish to comment on it. If I hurry up and finish my comments, other hon. Members will be able to make similar points, perhaps at more length.
Whatever happiness there is about the ONS data published today and what we believe to be their implications for objective 1 status, I hope, and the Committee hopes, that the Government still feel strongly about flexibility around the 75 per cent. threshold. It is an important matter of principle.
For new objective 2, the emphasis on unemployment as a principal measure of need is not unreasonable. Unemployment is perhaps the EU's greatest problem, so we welcome the emphasis on it. However, it makes no sense to rely exclusively on recent local unemployment rates. It is well known that member states do not exhibit identical economic cycles. That has a number of implications. One is that it is absurd to rely on a three-year snapshot of unemployment to determine fund distribution. The Select Committee is therefore of the view that objective 2 funding should be allocated broadly on the basis of per capita GDP, and that member states should have great freedom to identify the areas to be assisted.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Coalfield areas have gained substantially from European funding—£200 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be strange if the South Yorkshire coalfield got objective 1 status while north Nottinghamshire, which has the same conditions but just misses objective 1 perhaps on unemployment and GDP data, were excluded? Is that not an example of where flexibility ought to be applied?

Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall come to the issue of boundaries.
One issue that local authorities, among others, raised with the Committee was the setting of boundaries for the new objective 2 areas. It is clearly important that areas most in need should receive the funding. The Minister told the Committee that the Government would be looking for an outcome on objective 2 where there would be
the flexibility to delve down into areas of real need",
even if those areas were concealed in areas of relative prosperity.
In their response to the report, the Government warned that there were many hurdles to overcome, but said that they were committed to the principle of flexibility. Are the Government willing to continue to seek to have objective 2 areas defined below NUTS level 3—at least to ward level 5, if not below? I think that that takes on the point that my hon. Friend has just made.
There has been a broad welcome in principle for the Commission's proposal to reduce the number of community initiatives from the current 14 to three. It has been argued that many activities pursued under community initiatives could as easily be carried out under objective programmes. However, that can be done only in areas enjoying objective status. In Lancashire, the Committee was briefed on community initiative projects of real worth outside objective areas—the Royal Ordnance site at Chorley and a former cotton mill at Stockport spring to mind.
Moreover, the local authority associations were cautious about reducing the number of community initiatives. The Local Government Association sought the continuation of the urban initiative, which provides concentrated assistance to a few selected urban areas. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supports the campaign for a fourth initiative, Restruct, which would bring together the current industrial change initiatives.
The Committee's view is that serious consideration should be given to the continuation in some form of the urban initiative and to the introduction of the proposed Restruct initiative. In light of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations, may I press the

Minister to tell the House how far the Government will back the Restruct initiative and seek transitional funding for urban projects just begun, which the Committee feels is important?
The Government's response agrees with almost all the Committee's conclusions and recommendations, which means that only limited disagreement is to be expected this evening. However, I have raised several issues that require further clarification from the Minister. Because of the time available, the list has not been exhaustive, but I am sure that other hon. Members will now add many more items to that list.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. A great many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye and it is already evident that, unless some self-restraint is exercised, many people will be disappointed.

Mr. Colin Breed: The broad principles underlying the reforms are to be welcomed. They are, to some extent, overdue. The full implications of enlargement of the European Union, many of which have yet to be recognised, will certainly have concentrated minds, since to do nothing to the current rules relating to structural funding would certainly hugely increase budget contributions. In addition, inequities between certain member states and regions would be created, and tensions within the Union might be aggravated.
The provision of structural funds has clearly been of great importance to all member states, not least the United Kingdom. The funds provide a tangible benefit, and enable people to see how Europe is of assistance to them and how it works constructively for them. That aspect of our membership has not been given the profile it deserves.
The reforms have had to address two sharply conflicting aims: on the one hand, to achieve greater fiscal restraint over a budget and individual contributions that are ever increasing; and, on the other hand, to continue to assist existing poorer regions and cope with future post-enlargement demands from new regions.
Many existing members want their overall contribution to fall in real terms and there have been calls for greater abatements and refunds. However, demands are increasing as awareness of what can be funded increases. Therefore, to reduce the number of initiatives, restrict the range of community initiatives and undertake an exercise in concentration to target assistance in a more focused manner, with the additional benefit of simplifying the system generally, are welcome measures which we should support.
The strict application of the criteria for objective 1, based on per capita gross domestic product of 75 per cent. of the EU average, is understandable from the EU' s point of view. As the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said, it makes for clear-cut, black-and-white decision making. However, it could lead to conflict over the boundaries used for the purposes of statistical data to support new applications. Common sense must prevail, and some flexibility should be retained.
It appears that the total share of structural funds received by the UK would actually fall, and many regions currently enjoying objectives 2 and 5b status only might


in future receive only transitional funds under the new objective 2 status. That might have a major effect on some of the regions currently obtaining support, forcing them to draw up new economic plans.
The proposed timetables are, on the face of it, extremely tight, but they must be adhered to if the reforms are to be well embedded prior to the first wave of any enlargement. There will obviously be a danger, emphasised in the report, of putting off difficult decisions—indeed, it appears that some EU members put off a rather difficult decision today. However, that must not be allowed to happen, as procrastination would clearly invite greater difficulties in future. It might also delay opportunities for new members to join: it must be remembered that the peoples of those aspirant member states might lose some of their enthusiasm for enduring the very strictures imposed on them to enable their countries to meet the accession criteria. The EU must maintain the momentum of reform to ensure that enlargement can and does come about.
The Committee's recommendation to concentrate funding on the poorest 20 per cent. of regions is based on a desire to reduce the gap between richer and poorer nations, but it would also reduce the number of objective 1 regions and so be difficult to implement, especially as some of those regions will have only just received that status—I am not necessarily referring to Cornwall in that context. However, the suggestion that each member state should undertake to reduce the population covered as a means of sharing the burden of geographical concentration has some merit. It would be a fairer system that allowed each state to decide how to implement the policy within its own boundaries.
I should like to make a few remarks as a Member of Parliament from Cornwall. As the Minister knows, the whole of Cornwall was pleased—nay, delighted—when the county became a NUTS 2 region in its own right, with the result that its case for objective 1 status was much enhanced. Cornwall is clearly on a par with places such as Greece and Spain in terms of GDP per head, and I, along with nearly half a million other people, am looking forward hopefully to the confirmation of objective 1 status for Cornwall in the not-too-distant future.
The county of Cornwall has benefited from objective 5b status, the experience of which is pertinent to my final point: that the process of seeking funding is far too complex. In addition, it is too unco-ordinated with other programmes, and too vulnerable to delays in decision making. All that often results in carefully assembled packages falling apart at the wrong moment. The bureaucracy and over-elaborate administrative procedures must be examined and overhauled so that, when dealing with the private sector, which is vital in respect of matched funding, we can keep pace with its timetables.
Such reform will not result in any lessening of the quality of accountability, or of ensuring that proper control is maintained. It is unacceptable to allow impediments to such critical funding packages, especially those relating to objective 1 areas, to persist. Some subsidiarity must be applied to that area of EU operations.

Mr. David Heath: I am glad that my hon. Friend has touched on subsidiarity.

Having read the Committee report and the Government's overall response, does he agree that the weakest part of that response relates to recommendation 13, which deals with subsidiarity? Does it not bode rather ill for the forthcoming informal European Council on subsidiarity if, at that conference, the Government are not going to promote the case for subsidiarity beyond national level?

Mr. Breed: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There has been much talk about subsidiarity, but little action to enable it to take place. That is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the over-bureaucratic administration of funding packages.
The reforms will modernise the structural funds in advance of enlargement, and reduce the total funds available, which should ensure some restraint on funding. However, I suspect that, as with other funds, demand will always exceed the available resources.
I hope that there will be a fervent desire to tackle the bureaucracy and over-elaborate administration. If the red tape were cleared away, that would do much to ensure that economic development was quickly achieved in the regions of the EU, in all the objective statuses, and we know that time is critical to many parts of the UK and other EU countries.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is pleasing to be able to take part in this debate. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who fully explained the national and European dimensions, means that my speech will be shorter because I can concentrate on local issues and plead with the Minister to take note of the problems suffered by coalfield areas.
Research shows that European funding is the largest source of finance for economic regeneration in many areas of the United Kingdom. For the five years from 1994 to 1999, the assessed total that we could obtain is about £3.2 billion for objective 2 funding to assist rundown industrial areas. Those include my constituency and the Wakefield area, where mining, textile and engineering jobs have been lost in their thousands. They were well-paid jobs which contributed substantially to the economy of the Wakefield area and the surrounding towns and cities.
European Union funding could contribute to the securing of 340,000 jobs nationally, which would help to create jobs for redundant mineworkers and provide job opportunities for our young people. The UK is the fifth-largest contributor to the EU budget, so we make a substantial contribution for the return that we obtain.
My fear is that the redrawing of the EU map for objective 1 and objective 2 areas which determines the availability of European grants will mean that my constituency loses out. I am concerned that areas such as West Yorkshire, and Wakefield in particular, will not qualify for either objective status if the negotiations currently taking place do not recognise their economic problems. Wakefield, which has lost its traditional industries, including coal, engineering and textiles, would suffer substantially.
I want to impress on the Minister and the European Commissioners the fact that the present criteria for awarding objective 2 status are narrow and sometimes inaccurate. They work against regions such as Yorkshire


and the Humber. It would be cruel and dishonest to change the formula without taking into consideration the current economic conditions of regions such as mine.
The gross domestic product per head in former mining, textile and engineering areas is less than the EU average. The nature of jobs has changed: well-paid permanent jobs have been replaced by low-paid part-time jobs; and skilled jobs have been replaced by non-skilled work in retailing and catering. My area is becoming a supermarket jungle—out-of-town shopping is killing off town and city centres.
Training for skilled employment is a mere token in our area. High-tech jobs are difficult to find; high-tech industries are not attracted to the area, mainly because of the dereliction and closure of our traditional industries. Our damaged environment acts as a deterrent and a disincentive to investment. Local authorities that represent those rundown areas are working hard to combat that dereliction, but they have limited resources. That is a significant reason why areas that now qualify for objective 2 status should continue to do so.
The legacy of over-dependency on a few traditional industries is enduring, and local authorities are working hard to encourage industries and businesses to locate in their areas, but the going is hard and we need the support of EU structural funds. We also need the European Commission to take note of the problems in those areas. I ask that, in any redrawing of the structural maps, note be taken of all the economic conditions.
My constituents ask for fairness, not favours. I support the Government negotiators in pressing the European Commission to consider all economic and social aspects in our regions. In my lobbying for objective 2 status for the Wakefield area, I point out that it has a high proportion of derelict land, high levels of economic inactivity, a high level of dependency on income support, high levels of ill health, low life expectancy and declining male employment. On behalf of my constituents, I therefore plead with the House to be unanimous and impress on the European Commissioners the need to maintain objective 2 status in our area.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the report and I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate. I congratulate the Minister on her generous and open-door policy and thank her for her generous replies to correspondence and my requests for meetings with her.
I join other hon. Members who have made special pleadings for their areas. As the Minister knows, there is concern in North Yorkshire that has not yet been allayed, particularly about the fact that two initiatives will be discontinued. The first is the Konver programme, which has had a positive impact on areas in my constituency. I am not convinced that those areas will continue to benefit under the new arrangements for objective 2, which is worrying.
I also make a plea on behalf of the farming community, which receives generous benefits from the 5b proposals. I do not need to remind the House of the present plight of farmers. Never before in my lifetime have I witnessed all sectors of the farming industry in such a crisis. Farmers in lowland areas such as the Vale of York, who would normally admit privately to being reasonably well off, have desperately low incomes this year. I make a special plea that those areas covered by the 5b provision not be forgotten.
I am pleased that the Select Committee's report refers to some programmes specifically. However, I am concerned that, in the tussle for funds between rural and urban areas—such as those represented by hon. Members who have spoken this evening—places such as the Vale of York will lose out because the initiatives and the population number criterion are being reduced. I issue a plea on behalf of the rural community that it should continue to benefit from European funding.
Under the new proposals, the existing arrangements will obviously cease from 2000. Tourism, particularly in North Yorkshire, has suffered this year as a result of the strength of the pound and competition from package holidays to attractive parts of Europe and other world destinations. That crisis in the tourism industry must be recognised. Under the current proposals, most service sectors do not qualify for funding because the emphasis is very much on the decline in the manufacturing industry. I do not know whether the Government—even during the United Kingdom's EU presidency, when a vigorous campaign was fought over the transitional arrangements—have made a special case for funding tourism and other service sectors, including port-related activities. I hope that the hon. Lady will put my mind at rest this evening by assuring the House that tourism will benefit from the revised proposals.
I was struck by one important point in the Committee's conclusions: whether the Government have faced honestly the real impact of the proposals on the whole of the United Kingdom. I refer to new objective 2. Several million people currently qualify for funding under the former objective 5b and Konver provisions, and it is regrettable that there will be a dramatic fall in the number who will benefit under the new arrangements. The United Kingdom receives 9 per cent. of the total EU structural funds, but the amount will fall dramatically from 2000. There is no guarantee that people will continue to benefit to the same extent under the transitional arrangements. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the request for an extension of relevant objectives 1 and 2 to six or seven years will be agreed by the other member states?
The new arrangements will, rightly or wrongly, give more say to the national administration and the local Government offices for the regions on how the funds will be administered. We seek an assurance this evening that there will be a certain continuity in the allocation of moneys, which should not be jeopardised in the future.
I met the Minister in about May this year and I was struck by her reference to the new concept of pockets of rural deprivation. However, the Minister's replies in correspondence of 18 June were rather open-ended. She said, for instance, that the negotiations were still at an early stage. However, I understand that the Prime Minister has said that the new arrangements must be agreed by March next year. That is a very ambitious timetable. Will the Minister elucidate on the concept of pockets of rural deprivation and the other outstanding matters on which we touched earlier?

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I shall be very parochial in my speech tonight—and I make no apologies for that. As chairman of the northern group of Labour Members of Parliament, I speak on behalf of the north-east as well as my constituency. I stress the


immense value of structural funds to that region. Those funds have been worth more than £1,000 million to the north-east since 1989 and have created tens of thousands of jobs. At more than £100 million per annum, they are worth more than the proposed budget of the regional development agency. The funds have assisted areas suffering major economic and social hardship and the dislocation of the local work force, and rural areas suffering from a combination of sparse population and a continued dependence on agriculture.
The funds have secured enormous achievements for the north-east. Structural funds have allowed the region to cope with massive structural change and have been a huge boost to the north-east's economic, social and environmental regeneration. They have encouraged considerable private investment. The funds have raised regional competitiveness and have been used effectively and imaginatively. The north-east has been cited by the Commission as one of the best performers in applying and directing resources.
All that is under threat, as the European Commission is recommending the reform of structural funds and a reduction by up to a third in the population level that they cover. Special support to the coalfields and to specific sectors, such as textiles, steel and shipbuilding, will be scrapped. I stress that the north-east needs continued assistance. The task of restructuring the economy is not yet complete and the north-east continues to face severe social and economic problems of a deep-rooted structural nature.
First, per capita gross domestic product in the north-east is the lowest of any region in the country. Secondly, the north-east has the highest unemployment claimant count of any English region. More than one in three unemployed people have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Real unemployment—that is, joblessness—is more than twice as high as the claimant count. Thirdly, average weekly wages in the north-east are the lowest of any English region. The north-east has the lowest disposable household income in the whole of the United Kingdom. Some 37 per cent. of those in work earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold—that is the highest rate in the United Kingdom.
Fourthly, business start-up and survival rates are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. Economic activity rates for both men and women are the lowest in England and the second lowest in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, recent large-scale job losses have exacerbated the problem and highlighted the fragility of the region's economy. I assure the House that that is not a price worth paying.
Although structural funds have cushioned the region from further decline, its relative competitiveness has slipped as other regions have improved their economic performance. A reduction in structural funds would hinder the process of restructuring. It would constitute a major setback in rebuilding confidence and the diversity and strength of the region's economy. Such a reduction would cause a rapid decline in competitiveness and widen the gap between the region and other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe.
The north-east needs the maximum level of financial assistance. Parts of the region—notably the former coalfield and rural areas—have a gross domestic product

of less than 75 per cent. of the EU average, which is the selection criterion for objective 1 funding. Northumberland and Durham have not been included as a level 2 region in the agreement reached between the Office for National Statistics and Eurostat. The designation of Northumberland and Durham as a level 2 region would have given us a good chance of obtaining objective 1 status, which would bring up to £150 million in European grants to the area.
The decisions on the revision of level 2 area status are supposedly based purely on statistical arguments rather than political decisions. However, on close examination, that does not appear to be the case. Eurostat has accepted some changes to the level 2 lists. They are in Cornwall, west Wales, London and Scotland.
Before anyone gets up in arms, let me make it clear that it is absolutely not my intention to argue that those areas should not have redesignation—far from it. I agree with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission that decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible. My argument is that there appears to be a double standard in that some areas are accepted while others are rejected.
Let me take Cornwall as an example. If there is supposed to be a statistical adherence to size basis, why should Cornwall, with a population of just 400,000, become a level 2 area?

Ms Candy Atherton: The figure is 480,000. Let us get this absolutely clear. Let us be honest and say that Cornwall is a cultural region in its own right.

Mr. Steinberg: I was coming to that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not arguing against Cornwall's redesignation. I am simply making a comparison, and I am entitled to do that. If one area gets level 2 status and another does not, there must be a reason. I want to find out what that reason is. I do not begrudge Cornwall getting redesignation. I am delighted, so my hon. Friend should not get herself in a twist.
Cornwall has been allowed to split off from Devon because of a
recognition of the very different economic conditions of the counties and Cornwall's sparsity of population, geographic peripherality and distinct cultural and historical factors reflecting a Celtic background.
That was a quote from Eurostat.
As Cornwall is a county, on the general rationale it should be a level 3 area and, as such, be eligible for objective 2 rather than objective 1. The specific points allowed by Eurostat in accepting the case for level 2 designation include the "different economic conditions" between Devon and Cornwall, which in gross domestic product terms is 15 per cent. The discrepancy in GDP terms between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear is also 15 per cent. Therefore, economic conditions are just as different between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear as they are between Devon and Cornwall.
It is also worth pointing out that Cornwall is part of the south-west region, which has an overall GDP of 95 per cent. of the EU average while the northern region has only


85 per cent. of the EU average. We are a poor part of a poor region, whereas Cornwall is a poor part of a much richer region.
Cornwall's population sparsity is specifically referred to as part of the rationale for accepting level 2 review. However, in Northumberland and Durham, sparsity is worse, at 123 people per sq km compared with 136 people per sq km in Cornwall. Emphasis is placed on Cornwall's geographical peripherality. Penzance, at the extreme western tip of Cornwall is 282 miles from London while Berwick in the north of Northumberland is further away at 357 miles from London.
I now turn to the
distinct cultural and historic factors reflecting Celtic background".
How can that possibly be a statistical argument? On that basis, Northumberland should have objective 1 status because we were not conquered by the Romans.
In view of that, what exactly is the rationale for accepting Cornwall for review, but not Northumberland and Durham? I ask that question quite seriously. If anything, the statistical case for Cornwall is rather less robust than that for Northumberland and Durham, reinforcing our view that the decision was political, not statistical.
The north-east is one of the most structurally challenged areas and that is why it needs structural funds. The UK Government have finally recognised coalfield areas as a priority. Now is not the time to disallow access to what will be the last major chance of structural funds going to the UK to help those areas. Europe grew out of the coal and steel community. The coalfields have to be understood in the context of permanent, steep long-term decline. The insistence of Eurostat on ignoring the United Kingdom position and rescheduling those areas as level 2 means that they must now compete as objective 2 regions, although their success is by no means certain. In fact, they are objective 1 regions trying to get objective 2 funding. The designation of objective 1 status should be the subject of open debate by the EU and member states, along with the principles of subsidiarity, transparency, fairness and social justice. The matter should not be cut and dried, with Eurostat overruling member states by the utilisation of a subjective formula.
The Commission has proposed that objective 2 eligibility should be based predominantly on employment and unemployment statistics. Industrial decline in the north-east has been long-term and sustained. Some areas have lost so many industrial jobs that they may not continue to qualify as industrial areas.
In selecting eligible objective 2 areas, the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission must use additional indicators of deprivation and exclusion that are meaningful. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that additional selection criteria for objective 2 status should include some of the following factors.
First, per capita GDP should be recognised by the EC as the single most important factor in determining whether a region lags behind the rest of Europe. Parts of the north-east contain some of the lowest GDP in the United Kingdom, and the region as a whole has the lowest GDP of any region. Secondly, the skills level of the work force is fundamental to their ability to compete effectively. The narrow skills base in the north-east is a direct consequence of traditional structural reliance on heavy industry and

agriculture. Thirdly, the north-east suffers from endemic deep-rooted unemployment. Official unemployment statistics underplay the problem of joblessness and the related issue of social exclusion. Fourthly, rural areas continue to suffer acute problems in terms of overdependence on a narrow and inflexible economic base, changing economic structures, remoteness and scarcity of population. Finally, aid should be concentrated on areas suffering structural problems. Allowing small areas with cyclical problems to qualify would reduce the impact of structural funds and fail to recognise real need.
At a European level, the UK Government are seeking a fair distribution of structural funds across member states. Distribution within the United Kingdom should also be on a fair basis, recognising real indicators of need. The economy in the north-east is struggling with huge job losses continuing to occur in manufacturing. The region is still undergoing a major restructuring process. The continuation of structural funds is vital to stabilise the future economy and boost job prospects in the north-east of England.

Mr. David Prior: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) with whom I served on the Select Committee for a few months. I am particularly pleased to follow a Labour Member who still believes in the redistribution of wealth, which is something of a surprise these days.
The debate is important because we receive £11 billion a year from the structural fund which represent 45 per cent. of the European budget. We badly need reform, not just because of the enlargement of Europe, but because as everyone agrees—and the Committee certainly agreed—the system has become hugely over-bureaucratic and needs simplification. Let me quote one item from the Committee report:
Eligibility for Objective 1 status is based on areas defined in Euro-speak as 'NUTS Level 2'. There has for some years been in existence a system of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, designed to provide a single uniform breakdown of sub-national territorial units for statistical and other purposes.
Very few normal people can understand a word of that and it illustrates just how complicated and difficult the system has become. I agree with the Committee report when it refers to the results as arbitrary and capricious.
Worst of all is the political horse-trading in the background and we have heard something about it this evening. Even with Agenda 2000 determining the criteria by which parts of Europe should qualify for the new objectives, there is already horse-trading over those criteria.
It is nonsense that the criteria are determined at EU level and I am glad that the Committee recognised that and stated in its conclusions that in future they must include
delegation to the lowest practicable level, and to non-statutory bodies in suitable cases.
I was also pleased to see conclusion 24 which states:
The extent to which Objective 2 arrangements allow for funds to be targeted if necessary below local government ward level will be a measure of the Government's success in negotiations.
My own view is that that does not go nearly far enough. It is hard not to agree with Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who asked whether it would be more sensible for us to take


control of the whole £11 billion and spend it wisely on our real needs, no doubt saving several billion pounds along the way. The more decisions that can be made locally, the better. If we carry on as we have in the past, we shall merely bring the European Union into disrepute.
Representing a rural constituency, I have a particular concern that objective 5b will be subsumed into the new objective 2, and that the rural areas will be squeezed. They will have to compete directly with industrial and urban areas, and historically they have had far less clout.
The indicators chosen by the European Commission to decide which areas qualify for support clearly discriminate against rural areas. The Commission decided that to qualify, rural areas must have a population density of less than 100 people per square kilometre or a high percentage of agricultural workers. In the United Kingdom that will have a serious effect on our ability to qualify for objective 5b.
Part of my constituency does qualify for objective 5b. It has been successful in attracting new industry and there has been a fruitful partnership between the local authority and private business. Indeed, the Select Committee report includes a letter from my district council which states that it believes that
the additional funding available under the programme has seen positive effects delivered in the area—particularly in terms of capital investment projects by the public and private sectors in Fakenham".
The loss of objective 5b funding will have a serious impact on Fakenham and the
surrounding area.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman will know from that section of the report that parts of his district felt that they did not obtain objective 5b funding because Lowestoft in my constituency was granted objective 5b, although it is a town of 60,000 or 70,000 people. The case for help through structural funds for Lowestoft was overwhelming, but it was not large enough to qualify for objective 2. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), may I say that there are small areas with structural, not just cyclical, unemployment?
Because the only way to help Lowestoft was through objective 5b, it had to be redefined as rural. Is that not an argument for reform of the funds, so that areas such as Lowestoft can get what they deserve, without having to be designated as rural at the expense of other rural areas?

Mr. Prior: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman presents an argument for ensuring that decisions are taken locally, so that such considerations can be taken into account.
I shall conclude my speech with a further example. Alongside North Norfolk is a coastal strip where there are several fishing communities. They would have qualified under objective 5b, but for the fact that the travel-to-work area in which a number of fishermen were assessed included Fakenham, Cromer, North Walsham and other towns, so there was not a high enough percentage of fishermen to qualify. Along the coastal strip, however, the percentage is sufficiently high.
I hope that when the Minister negotiates the qualifications for objective 2, she will support the submission to her from the North Norfolk district council that the Nrth Norfolk coastal strip should be designated under the fisheries strand of the objective 2 programme.
I believe strongly that the structural funds should be allocated and spent locally, as near as possible to the ground, and that rural areas such as North Norfolk and other parts of Great Britain should be safeguarded.

Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in tonight's debate. To us in Cornwall, objective 1 is more than an opaque piece of bureaucratic jargon. To many, it is like the holy grail—a recognition that distinct regions such as ours on the periphery of the European Market need assistance to overcome chronic structural disadvantages. Indeed, I would not be going too far if I said that in Cornwall, European structural funds are exceedingly sexy.
It came as a terrific boost in June to learn that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had recognised the inherent logic behind Cornwall's case for recognition as a distinct region at NUTS level 2. Whereas most people in less hard hit regions might repay the mention of objective 1 with a glazed expression, in my constituency even the eyes of schoolchildren light up.
I should not want my hon. Friends to think that we have been pleading emotionally for special treatment. The merit of Cornwall's case rests partly on its distinct regional identity. Cornwall has a unique cultural and economic history. In its heyday it was the powerhouse of British industry, but today it could easily be described as a backwater. The Select Committee agreed in its report that
it would be…absurd to describe Cornwall as a bogus entity.
I should welcome a visit to Cornwall by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), so that I could show him myself the structural problems that we face.
The merit of Cornwall's case also rests heavily on statistics. Recent figures—I believe that more have been published today—show that gross domestic product in the county is only 68 per cent. of the EU average. That is well below the 75 per cent. cut-off for objective 1. I understand that we have come bottom of the table in today's statistics.
For years the truth about Cornwall's problems has been masked by amalgamation with relatively prosperous Devon. We have received objective 5b grants, which are highly constructive. However, they do not offer the fundamental help that the county desperately needs.
The Prime Minister recognised our strong technical case, which also had strong backing in all political parties, in the county and through the wider south-west. The first action of the regional chamber of the south-west was to support unanimously Cornwall's case for objective 1. We were delighted to learn this summer to learn that Eurostat had agreed that Cornwall should be separated from Devon at NUTS level 2.
Cornwall now satisfies all the technical criteria for gaining objective 1 funding. As we approach the next round of objective 1 allocations, we in Cornwall were encouraged that, in discussing the flexibility of the 75 per cent. threshold, the Select Committee suggested that
it is hard to imagine a region below the threshold being excluded".
I look forward to the county council producing an irrefutable package of proposals, based on widespread consultation throughout the county, which will put the seal on our bid. Next week the movers and shakers of


the county meet to thrash out the first phase of our plans to spend. Over the next few weeks a consultation document will be delivered to every door in the county asking for direct input from the grass roots.
I particularly agree with the Committee's analysis of the complexity of the process. It is indeed complex, and that is compounded by the jargon. We encounter terms such as Eurostat, Leader, state aids, objectives 1 to 6, the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, and my favourite term—NUTS. It would be fair to say that most people in Cornwall are becoming comfortable with the terminology, if sometimes a little confused. A man came to my surgery recently and asked me, "Well, then, Candy, are we going to get this objectionable 1?" I hope and believe that we will.
In Cornwall we have a true partnership between the public and private sectors, central and local government, and from voluntary organisations to the health authority, all headed by the county council. If we succeed in achieving objective 1, we shall have the opportunity to redefine our county, create a new university, tackle our infrastructure problems and, perhaps, as a predominantly small and medium-sized business centre, become the leading light across the EU in supporting and developing this sector.
The opportunities are there for the taking, and Cornwall stands at a crossroads. I hope that the county that currently stands on a par with the poorer regions of Portugal and Greece will be able to reorient itself into the future, with all its people pulling together.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The reality is, as the members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry accepted in their report, that the European Union faces budgetary restrictions at a time of expansion. New nations, which we in the Scottish National party are keen to see joining the EU, are the very nations for which structural and cohesion funding are vital to ensure smooth accession and the subsequent smooth operation of the single market.
On the Scottish National party Benches we strongly hold to the principle—as has already been mentioned, it is somewhat out of fashion—that those who have a little more should in the best interests of society, or in this instance the best interests of the EU, contribute to those who have a little or a lot less. Equalising economic development and creating a stable union is in all our interests. We shall all benefit from the new partners who are in a position to participate fully in the single market but the political reality is that there is no endless pot of Euro-gold. If we are to have new members, the cake will have to be divided differently. It is important that the criteria that we adopt in cutting up that cake is not inflexible. We must take a wider view than the current criteria propose.
As for the proposed new objective 1, there must be great doubt over the accuracy of some of the regional gross domestic product figures that are being used as the main criteria for the objective. These figures are partly based on sample surveys. Even the Office for National Statistics itself says that the
estimates cannot be regarded as accurate to the last digit shown.
Yet on that basis a member of the cabinet of Commissioner Monika Wolf-Mathies, who obviously must be a very important person as he was asked

before the Select Committee in another place, said—[HON. MEMBERS: "She."] No. I am talking about the cabinet member representing the commissioner. He said before the Select Committee in another place that 75.1 per cent. shared gross domestic product was enough to exclude a region from objective 1. That means an exclusion based on the first decimal point of an inaccurate statistic.
On that basis, the highlands and islands would technically fall outwith the new criteria based on gross domestic product alone. If we take the original reasoning for objective 1, the highlands and islands would clearly benefit from the sort of structural support that is envisaged for objective 1 areas.
The arguments for the highlands and islands getting objective 1 have been well rehearsed, but they should certainly be repeated with force by the Government during the ensuing negotiations. I would expect the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) to rehearse the arguments in some detail if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In terms of peripherality, population density, composition and general geography, there is an overwhelming case for the highlands and islands to be treated in the same way as the northern rim regions of Sweden—these are regions that have a higher gross domestic product than the highlands and islands—and Finland.
The case for the highlands and islands is strong, but less attention has been given in Scotland to the position of new objective 2 or current 5b areas. My constituency currently falls within the 5b area, but much of coastal rural "lowland" Scotland is also covered. Population density, unemployment and depopulation are all useful indicators, but they often fail to show the real picture of need.
The Government must press for objective 2 to take more fully into account all the possible indicators of low economic activity. For example, we must consider the amount of casual, seasonal or part-time employment. We must consider also the incidence of low earnings or low household incomes. We must take account of remoteness and lack of access to services and opportunities. We must consider not only population density but population composition—for example, is there an aging population or is there a substantial incidence of emigration of young people?
We must be concerned also about the arbitrary drawing of boundaries. I must say, given the remarks of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), that I have no claim to include Berwick within any of the Scottish areas. However, gross domestic product and unemployment statistics conceal vast differences within areas. For example, the GDP of the highlands and islands is skewed by the inclusion of Inverness. The area of the islands is greatly skewed by the inclusion of Shetland.
Unemployment is also a variable statistic. Male unemployment based on claimant count within the region in which my constituency is situated—that is Dumfries and Galloway—is 7.4 per cent. Yet male unemployment in the Newton Stewart travel-to-work area within my constituency is 14.6 per cent., which is almost double. We must have a system that is flexible enough to cope with these discrepancies.
I am concerned that my area of Dumfries and Galloway may not qualify under the current proposed criteria. However, the issue is not about looking after our
own


backyard and that alone; it is about delivering though objective 2 the aims of economic development. It is about ensuring that communities elsewhere in Scotland, the United Kingdom or throughout the European Union do not have the door closed on them because we have rigidly applied some statistics that have been dreamt up in some bureaucrat's office. So objective 2 should be about providing opportunities for the best programmes in areas of genuine need and not simply, as the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that areas of great need could include, or should include, fishing communities and fisheries dependent areas?

Mr. Morgan: I would certainly agree with that. That is something that we should bear in mind when we are considering the composition of an area. We should take into account the reliance of that area on declining industries such as fishing and, unfortunately, agriculture. I was saying that we should not simply be throwing all the money at a chosen few. Instead, we should be focusing on the best programmes for areas of genuine need.
In the area that I represent the net income from structural funds is dwarfed by contributions from the common agricultural policy. We are faced with not only the reform of structural funding but complete reassessment of the CAP. There is a growing feeling that European assistance under the CAP should move away from subsidy towards a programme of rural investment. That has a crucial bearing on our debate on structural funding.
At a time when rural areas across Europe and the United Kingdom are facing the possibility of reduced structural support, we must ask ourselves whether there are ways of refocusing other moneys to promote economic development in these areas. We need to find ways of more closely integrating the aims of both funding strands—that is the structural funds and the CAP—to ensure that maximum benefit goes to the areas in greatest need.
Finally, I want to focus briefly on the mechanisms for delivering structural funds within Scotland. We have a structure of local programmes and partnerships, which in many instances have been effective in building community structures and in disbursing structural funds. However, with the creation of a new streamlined structure of three objectives and four funds we have a good opportunity to consider the delivery mechanisms. There has been much criticism of existing structures that centre on levels of bureaucracy, endless meetings, seminars, forums, consultants and little true democratic accountability.
That being so, we must ask ourselves whether there is an opportunity to streamline delivery, to make greater use in Scotland of local enterprise companies along with local authorities and community partnerships and to improve scrutiny through a dedicated Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I would expect the new Scottish Parliament closely to examine this area to ensure that our structures are the most efficient at delivering for Scotland.
Transitional arrangements and safety nets will be vital. We must fight to ensure fair criteria for the new objectives. We must ensure that adequate provision is

made to cope with any delay in agreeing the new scheme. The successful partnerships now in place must not be allowed to disappear while the bureaucrats and politicians argue about the next scheme.

Mr. Jon Trickett: Paragraph 49 of the report refers to the importance of flexibility in the setting of boundaries for the allocation of funds, and states:
It is clearly important that…the areas which are most in need should receive the funding…The extent to which Objective 2 arrangements allow for funds to be targeted … will be a measure of the Government's success in negotiations.
I agree.
The European Commission's proposals are in danger of causing great injustice, particularly to the coalfield areas, by being too rigid and failing to deal with significant sub-regional disparities. I shall illustrate my point by reference to my area.
Wakefield district, where my constituency is located, has been a significant beneficiary of European funds for many years under objective 2. Since 1989, it has received about £40 million. We have been able to create 2,500 jobs and train about 11,000 of our residents. Local people cannot understand how the district could not qualify for such funding in future. They say that if we fitted the criteria for assistance more than a decade ago, when, admittedly, things in Wakefield were bad, it is inconceivable that we will not have access to the funds when our situation is immeasurably worse after the Thatcher and Major years. Over the past 15 years, the local traditional industries have been decimated. Wakefield had 20 collieries. Now it has one—20,000 mining jobs went. There have been major closures in other local industries such as
engineering, textiles and clothing.
According to the recommended criteria, our economy is counted as part of the West Yorkshire region. Our economic and social data are distorted because we are regarded effectively as being part of Greater Leeds. I come from Leeds. I was born, grew up and spent most of my life there. Eventually, I became leader of that great city, but I now live in the former pit villages in the east of the Wakefield district. That is the place I represent. Leeds and Wakefield share almost no economic or social characteristics except for the fact that, for administrative purposes, we form part of the West Riding of Yorkshire, as I insist on calling it.
To qualify for objective 1 funds, it is necessary for a region to have gross domestic product per capita below 75 per cent. of the European Union average. West Yorkshire's figure is well above 90 per cent., but the figure for Wakefield is much lower. It is estimated at 77 per cent., the lowest by far in the West Riding. That statistic alone demonstrates the falsity of the assumption that the population of a region as diverse as ours should be regarded as socially or economically homogeneous.
The same point applies to the objective 2 criteria, but I shall not pursue it because it is self-evident. However, I shall demonstrate the need for European Union structural funds to be sensitive to sub-regional disparities, especially the needs of former mining areas, by reference to my constituency. There are three factors.
First, Hemsworth in the mid-1980s was massively dependent on an industrial base. We were one of the nation's great wealth generators. Two thirds of jobs were


classified as industrial—twice the national average. As a result of what can only be described as an economic cataclysm, two thirds of those jobs disappeared in 14 years. Now only a quarter of the jobs in my constituency can be classified as industrial. Wakefield was the seventh worst hit district in the country in the industrial restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s. The district lost 23,000 jobs, but it covers four constituencies. Half the job losses were in just one constituency—mine. We lost almost 10,000 mining jobs in 14 years. That is industrial restructuring on a colossal scale and we will live for many years with the social consequences.
My second point concerns GDP per capita. We live in a region with slightly more than 90 per cent. of the EU average, but it is estimated that the figure for Hemsworth is substantially less than the 75 per cent., which would allow us access to objective 1 funding. My constituency shares boundaries with Barnsley and Doncaster. Our economic and social structure and the competitiveness of local firms have more in common with the South Yorkshire districts than with Leeds and Bradford. All that separates us from South Yorkshire is a couple of fields and a beck—a stream to those unfamiliar with our Yorkshire language. Wading through the beck on the other side of those fields, it seems that South Yorkshire will benefit from the highest priority objective 1 funds while we lose our access to the lower order objective 2 status.
My third point relates to earned income levels. According to Library estimates, one in four people working in my constituency earns less than £3.50 an hour. That compares with one in 14 in West Yorkshire and one in 20 in the economy as a whole. It is inconceivable to argue on that basis for the trickle-down theory, or to say that we are part of the West Yorkshire economy: we clearly are not.
I recognise that the British Government have a complex and sensitive task in negotiating with Brussels. Many people in my area believe that during the Tory years, a sustained effort was launched to tear the heart out of the villages where I live and which I am proud to represent. Small wonder that a recent university study concluded that many people in Hemsworth feel politically, economically and socially marginalised. The European Union recognised that sentiment as the inevitable corollary of industrial and economic restructuring. The structural funds were established because social cohesion was regarded as a fundamental objective of civilised governance. Its opposite, alienation, was seen as destructive of the social fabric. Social cohesion was one of the fundamental objectives of article 2 of Single European Act.
Over the past 15 years, Westminster has often seemed to be the enemy while the EU, through the structural funds, appeared to be our only ally. There will be great frustration and disappointment should the fund be withdrawn with the task only partially completed, or as I would say, hardly begun. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that she can to ensure that any changes to the administration of the funds are introduced with the greatest care and delicacy, paying particular attention to the existence of sub-regional disparities and micro-economies such as those in West Yorkshire.
I respectfully remind the Minister of the Deputy Prime Minister's coalfield task force report on this matter. She will recall that the task force was acutely aware of

the needs of the coalfields and of the significance of securing continuing assistance from Europe. Its report made three recommendations. I recommend those propositions to the House and to her as she goes to negotiate on our behalf.

Mr. Tim Collins: I commend the Select Committee and its staff for producing an admirably clear and constructive report. It is in many ways a model of its kind, both informative and persuasive. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on his elegant presentation to open the debate. I know that he was filling in for the Committee's Chairman, but, with his magisterial mastery of the overview, he demonstrated that he deserves to be a Chairman in his own right, if greater glory does not beckon before that.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about cohesion funds. If there is a case—and clearly, as many hon. Members have said, there is—for simplification, reduction and co-ordination of the European Union's expenditure in such areas, surely it must arise first and foremost with the cohesion funds.
Here we have public expenditure that was set up for a specific purpose—to prepare four member states for meeting the convergence criteria for joining the EU. Brussels has declared that three of the four have now met those criteria, yet the money is to continue to be paid in large measure. The hon. Gentleman is right to describe that as absurd. To me it is illustrative of a system one of whose acronyms is NUTS. There is a problem there, and it needs to be addressed.
My second point concerns the wider United Kingdom national interest. Whether we are Euro-sceptics, Europhiles or something in between, whether we supported HMS Durham as it shelled HMS Falmouth earlier in the debate, or whether we supported HMS Falmouth as it elegantly shelled HMS Durham back, and whatever our position on the issues, there is a broad United Kingdom national interest in ensuring that we get as much as possible out of the European funds.
We put far more into the European Union than we get out, and we want to make sure that we get out as much as we can. We must all therefore agree that the Government should take a hard-headed negotiating position.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend recall, and will he remind the House, that the genesis of regional development funds lies back in the days of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), during the negotiations on European accession? It was precisely in order to correct some of the imbalances in European funding that the concept was introduced.

Mr. Collins: I agree. The funds are an important balancing mechanism. The Government must continue to remind our EU partners that the reason the United Kingdom gets a large share of the funds is that the system was, and should continue to be, an attempt to rebalance some of the ways in which funds are redistributed around the Union.
We continue to put far more into the European Union than we get back, and however the budgetary negotiations turn out, that will continue to be the case. On the evidence of the debate, the Government would be right to believe that there was strong cross-party support for a tough negotiating position. I hope that the Minister has heard that in the debate today; it has been a consistent theme of speeches from both sides of the House.
If the Minister will forgive me for the analogy, I hope that she will—indeed, having read her testimony before the Select Committee, I believe that she intends to—go in to bat for Britain rather as a certain right hon. Lady did a few years ago: thump the table and demand our money. Indeed, I see that the hon. Lady has her handbag beside her on the Bench; no doubt she knows how to use it, and I commend her on her negotiating stance.
Like other hon. Members, I shall talk about an important constituency dimension. Much of my constituency benefits from objective 5b expenditure. It is important to recognise that even constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), with low unemployment—ours is below 2 per cent., and I know that many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on both sides of the House might envy that, and want their constituencies to move towards it—are not without their difficulties.
My constituency is very rural. Those in the House who were present last night at a meeting of the Rural Services Partnership heard an interesting presentation by Rita Hale, formerly of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, about the fact that people in rural areas have far less access than people elsewhere to public transport and public services, and have to travel much further in terms of both time and distance to get any form of public service, whether that be a leisure centre, a library, the health service, a jobcentre or benefits advice.
In my part of the world we are heavily dependent on two forms of employment. One is agriculture, which, according to local farmers, now faces its worst crisis for 40 or 50 years. The other is tourism, which has also had a bad year, partly because of the strength of sterling, and partly because of the bad weather.
That combination means that many of my constituents feel that this is the worst possible time for any serious debate about taking away large sums in European funding from areas such as ours. So I was delighted to hear the Department of Trade and Industry press office confirm to journalists from Cumbria this afternoon that the Government do not intend to accept a simple crude measure of unemployment as the only criterion on which the funds are distributed.
As many hon. Members have said, there are factors within and behind the unemployment figures that need to be taken into account. If rural Cumbria lost all its European funding, many parts of it would feel that they were being left to bleed to death. The Government would be right to fight hard for a broader, more sensible and more all-encompassing system for the distribution of the funds.
I shall finish now, because I know that many others wish to speak, and tell the Minister that I hope that she will feel that there has been consensus in the debate on

the need for a strong negotiating position. I hope that she will be able to take into the discussions with our European partners a belief that the House of Commons wishes the Government to fight Britain's corner hard, that the funds are important and that they should continue to be paid in all parts of the United Kingdom.
The funds should be available in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in Wales, as well as in all sorts of areas in England, rural as well as urban, some with slow economic development and others that, although they may do better from time to time, do not do well all the time. I hope that the Minister feels that she will now be able to go in to bat for Britain and bring home the bacon.

Mr. Ian Stewart: I, too, welcome the Trade and Industry Select Committee report, which gives a clear and thorough analysis of the implications for the United Kingdom of European Union proposals for changes in structural funds. I also welcome the Government's response to the report.
I am a keen supporter of the benefits of EU membership, and look forward to the enlargement of the Community for the enrichment that it will bring to our political and economic lives. I agree with the Government's premise that a poorer member state or region should receive more than a richer one—in other words, each according to his needs. I also agree with their view that reform of existing regional support must not only be affordable and fair but durable beyond 2006 for enlargement.
The proposed changes in European structural funds mean that while 51 per cent. of the population of the EU now receive assistance, in future only 35 to 40 per cent. of the population will be covered. The Alliance for Regional Aid has shown that funds are already closely targeted. For example, 68 per cent. of the funds go to 25 per cent. of the population.
As the Select Committee has pointed out, the Commission has said that aid should be more focused, although it has not yet made the case for further targeting. The upshot of the Commission's proposals would be that the 92 million people now covered by objective 2 or objective 5b status would be reduced to 74 million. That is a drop—or rather, a plummet—of 20 per cent.
Eccles, my constituency, in the city of Salford within the Greater Manchester area, currently benefits, as do other areas in the north-west region of England, from objective 2 status. The sub-region of Greater Manchester is one of the first and oldest industrial areas in Europe, and has suffered more than most from the widespread decline in traditional manufacturing industries and an aging and crumbling infrastructure.
For example, Salford still has an interest in clearing up the conditions left by mining blight, and one of our local authority members, Councillor Peter Grimshaw, will go to Brussels in December under the auspices of the Alliance for Regional Aid to lobby hard for the maintenance of regional funding that includes mining areas.
Typically, some full-time employment in our area has been replaced by part-time, lower-paid work, which has led to higher male unemployment. Interestingly, female unemployment is less than half the male rate in my constituency. The employment situation clearly would have been worse without European funds.
In the Greater Manchester sub-region, there are many positive points. One of the considerable strengths of Greater Manchester and Salford is its major input into information and communications technologies, research and development. There is further scope for developing this potential for the region's companies through training and advice and the commercial application of research. In the region there are a number of well-developed fibre-optic cable and copper wire networks including the Gemisis 2000 project based at Salford university.
It is ironic that the north-west is faced with the threat of losing EU funding at the very time when the Labour Government are implementing policies that will assist our region, such as the new deal, the minimum wage, the introduction of the regional development agency and chamber, and a single Government office for the north-west. Those measures will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of targeted assistance.
Local authorities in the Greater Manchester area are clear that structural funds have played an essential part in the progress that has been made in the last decade. The funds are vital to ensuring that the progress is consolidated and continued. The Greater Manchester authorities have argued forcefully that, without European support, the gap between the sub-region of Greater Manchester and the other, more prosperous regions in the UK and EU would widen further.
During the 1994 to 1996 programme period, EU structural fund investment in Greater Manchester was about £190 million. More than £80 million has been or will be invested in small and medium-sized enterprises, in which more than 70 per cent. of the work force are employed. Research and development and technological infrastructure projects have received about £25 million. That translates more generally into 52,000 jobs created, 86,000 companies assisted and 13,000 training places.
Between 1994 and 1998, Salford has benefited from £23 million of European structural funds. The local labour initiative was developed by combining European structural funds and European regional development funds, which assisted 275 companies and led to the creation of 221 much needed permanent jobs in the area. Salford is focusing its grant moneys on business support, upskilling the work force and helping the unemployed to access training and employment.
Why should the assistance continue? Greater Manchester and Salford have used their funds well. Funds have been applied as part of a coherent strategy to improve the economic and social position of residents and enhance economic competitiveness. However, the Salford and Greater Manchester economy still has problems which can only be successfully solved through a long-term programme of comprehensive regeneration in which European funding should play a leading and sustained role.
My local authority believes that the review of objective 2 status should not be based solely on the current proposed criteria, and that indices of need should be sharpened and redefined to include, for example, deprivation, local gross domestic product and income levels. Under the index of deprivation, Salford is the 23rd most deprived authority in England, but even that hides the reality. Forty-six of the districts in Salford are among the worst 6 per cent. nationally. It is essential that any revised objective 2 criteria help the UK's traditional industrial and manufacturing areas.
Salford has gained national pathfinder status for its innovative approach to regeneration and is working closely with the Government to share best practice. The loss of objective 2 status would undermine work currently under way. In my constituency, the Barton strategic employment zone—one of the largest undeveloped sites available for economic development in the north-west—has just received EU funding to enable it to be brought forward quickly. The zone is likely to be the engine for growth for the sub-region in the future. Without European funding, it would be difficult to get it started.
The Lowry centre in the neighbouring Salford constituency is an innovative national landmark millennium project which would not be built without EU support. Salford and Greater Manchester's priorities for support in a new objective 2 programme would include integrated business support packages, growth sector-specific support, capital for businesses to grow, access to accommodation for expansion and customised training and development packages.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations for transitional support, at paragraph 30, and its suggested seven-year duration. I would like to record my support for objective 1 status for Northern Ireland, parts of Wales, South Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside.
Without continued access to EU structural funds, the ability of the various partners—such as local authorities, training and enterprise councils, the voluntary sector, trade unions and businesses—will be severely hampered from meeting not only our own local and regional regeneration aspirations but those aspirations of the UK Government and the EU. Therefore, I urge the Government, in their negotiations with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, to press for a package of reforms that will maintain the maximum level of aid to Britain's traditional industrial areas, and to look favourably on us when deciding the allocation of discretionary funds made available to national Governments.
The job of regeneration in the regions and sub-regions is not complete. To reach completion, we need the stability brought about by the maintenance and fair distribution of European structural funds.

Mr. David Stewart: I welcome the opportunity to add my brief remarks to this vital debate. I wish to concentrate on two matters. First, I wish to refer to the future of objective 1 funding within Europe generally and the UK specifically, particularly in the light of the Commission's well-known statement about strictly applying the criterion for objective 1—per capita gross domestic product being below 75 per cent. of the EU average. Secondly, I wish to refer to the special case for the highlands and islands in terms of sparsity of population.
The highlands and islands is perhaps unique as the last unspoilt area of Europe—that was perhaps reflected by the visit of the Chairman of the Select Committee to my constituency, a visit which I very much welcomed. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) who perhaps stole my thunder by arguing very competently about sparsity and


low wages in the highlands. Perhaps that shows that peace has broken out tonight between Labour and the Scottish National party—not in other debates, but certainly in this one.
As a highlander, I am familiar with the issues of sparsity and low pay. The area is peripheral to the rest of Europe, but forms part of the northern rim of Europe, along with Finland and Sweden. It has high transport costs and unemployment. It is an area larger than Belgium, but has a population less than one third that of Brussels.
The impact of structural funds in the highlands and islands can be traced back to the 1970s, when the area had objective 5b funding status and then, latterly, objective 1. Over the past nine years, more than £240 million has been pumped into the highland economy—from the Mallaig harbour development to the dry dock at the Barmac oil fabrication yard, which will allow the oil fabrication industry in my area to compete in Europe in the manufacture of floating production vessels.
Objective 1 funding is a vital factor in the development of the funicular programme, which will allow a new rail link in the Cairngorms and 12-month-a-year tourism—a great boost to the area. The two main goals for objective 1 within the highlands and islands are, first, the achievement of external cohesion—that is, to pull up the economic performance of the area compared to the EU average—and, secondly, the achievement of internal cohesion, or reducing the disparities throughout the highlands and islands. Objective 1 funding has been a powerful catalyst to stimulate additional investment in the highlands and islands. It has been a great success and hon. Members need not merely take my word for it as independent assessment of all the projects has shown that more than 90 per cent. had either high or medium effectiveness. It has created more than 1,800 jobs in my area, which has been a particular boost to vulnerable and fragile rural areas.
I must touch on some of the threats and opportunities facing the highlands and islands, which will be familiar to many hon. Members with rural areas in their constituencies. The first is food prices, which are 8 per cent. higher in rural than in urban areas—in remote island communities, they can be as much as a quarter higher than in urban areas. Petrol and transport costs are also a great burden and can be up to 20 per cent. higher than in the central belt in Scotland, which reflects the limited competition and a lack of economies of scale.
Unemployment is another big threat. For example, 50 per cent. of those unemployed in the western isles are long-term unemployed. The new earnings survey recently showed that earnings in my area are 14 per cent. below the Scottish average and 23 per cent. below the UK average.
We have, therefore, a combination of a higher cost of living and low incomes. It is a double whammy and it is a recipe for poverty, poor housing and depopulation. However, there are also great opportunities, which I must briefly stress. We have a first-class environment. Two thirds of the sites of special scientific interest are in my area and one third of the highlands and islands is a national scenic area. We have a high-quality environment, which is a key factor in the promotion of the area. Also, we have new technology—that great weapon to defeat the problems of distance. We have the university of the

Highlands and Islands, which will offer higher education to all, from the crofter in Barra to the chartered accountant in Inverness. We have the beauty of tele-medicine, so doctors in Inverness can interview patients in Skye. We have tremendous opportunities in the resource base: forestry, fresh water and hydro-electricity. Inverness in my constituency is the world centre for the development of wave power. The area has the opportunities; it merely needs the economic wherewithal to exploit them.
I welcome the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that the highlands and islands should be treated on a par with other sparsely populated areas within the northern rim. I also welcome the Government's report on that issue. The highlands and islands are doubly disadvantaged. The area has a low gross domestic product. The figures announced today by the Office for National Statistics show that it is below 78 per cent. of the average GDP in the UK. If that were factored into a European context, I estimate that it would be around 76 per cent. of the European average.
The area also has a sparse population—less than 10 people per square kilometre. Apart from Finland and Sweden, no other area in Europe touches that figure. In addition, we have 90 inhabited islands, and that adds extra social and economic difficulties. That has been reflected in a wider context as article 299 of the treaty of Amsterdam refers to the problems of islands. I understand that the European Parliament will be discussing sparsity in a debate on Monday.
Finally, I warmly welcome this first-class report. It advances a strong case about the range of flexibility, the threshold of objective 1 eligibility and the broader criteria for the new objective 2. The next six months of negotiation in Europe will be tough. The report provides a thorough, thoughtful and welcome addition to the debate.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Perhaps you may be wondering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a nice boy representing a south-coast seat is doing in this debate, which has been so heavily dominated by the north. The answer is simple. If my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has visited Brighton—perhaps he has been there for the conference—he will have seen the elegant Regency facades and might have assumed that it is a fairly prosperous place. However, if one looks behind the facades, one finds tremendous poverty. The truth is that Brighton and Hove is a poor place.
I will not enter into a competition, saying, "I'm poorer than thee, lad." That would be silly. However, I want to establish that all the indicators put the area on a par with just about every area whose representatives have spoken tonight and which enjoy objective 2 funding. The difference is that we have never had a penny piece of European structural funding although we have the same difficulties. There are several reasons for that, the major ones being the inflexibility of the present set of statistical criteria that govern European structural funds, which the previous Government never seriously questioned, and the fact that no one made a case for Brighton and Hove. We had three Tory Members of Parliament. My opponent at the general election, who lost his seat to me after 27 years, woke up a year before the election to the fact that Brighton had an unemployment problem. I do not remember him uttering a squeak about it for years before.
Brighton has never been a recognised manufacturing centre, but it had manufacturing industry and now has virtually none. We used to build railway engines—I do not expect that many people know that. In the past 20 years, we have lost thousands of engineering jobs. That is a sector of our employment which has been wiped out and it is why we have some of the worst long-term male unemployment in the country. That is why we are one of the 17 pathfinder areas for the new deal in communities. I have not checked the list, but I strongly suspect that the other 16 currently enjoy either objective 1 or 2 European structural funding. We have had nothing, so we have been unable to create new jobs to fill the spaces on our brown-field industrial estates where the jobs have simply gone. We are claiming not to be poorer than thou, but to be in the same league and we want an opportunity to access similar support.
I shall give a few statistics to justify my case. Unemployment in Brighton and Hove is 7 per cent. compared with a national average of 5 per cent. and a regional average of 3 per cent. However, it is up to 30 per cent. in some wards of our city. The unemployment is concentrated in estates, which is why we have the new deal for communities. Our long-term unemployment puts us sixth out of the 354 local authorities in the United Kingdom—I will bet that not many people knew that, but it is important to us. Our poor housing and rough sleepers put us 35th out of the 354; on poverty we are 60th; and, for the numbers dependent on income support, we are 35th. Our crime levels are high and our wages low. The average wage is £30 less than in Liverpool, which is an objective 1 area, and £55 less than the average for the south-east. However, our cost of living is not low but among the highest in the country outside of London. So, we think that, in principle, we have a good case for being included in European Union structural funding. That has been denied us because we have slipped through the statistical net. Under NUTS 2, we were lumped with the whole of Sussex and Surrey. As an objective 3 area, we were still lost.
Despite the criticisms that we have heard tonight of the proposed criteria and regulations for structural funding, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her work to secure increased flexibility. That has enabled HMS Falmouth to line up for objective 1 status and has allowed Brighton and Hove to be recognised as an objective 3 area in its own right, so that we can bid for objective 2 funding.
I shall not press the case for that now, as one has already been prepared—the Minister will receive a copy of the document very soon, if she has not already—and it stands on its own merits. Provided that in the inal negotiations for the new regulations we do not slip back and lose any flexibility, I am confident that Brighton and Hove has a very good case—which is not to say that I am confident of securing the funding.
With the new flexibility, many urban areas, including Brighton and Hove, will meet the objective 2 criteria, such as whether the rate of long-term unemployment is higher than the Community average and whether there are high levels of poverty, a particularly damaged environment, a high crime rate or a low level of education among the population. Under the proposals, an area has to meet only one of those criteria, and we score on four out of the five. If that is not flexibility, I do not know what is; I suspect that if hon. Members read the small print of the regulations, they will find greater flexibility than they had imagined.
I am grateful to the Minister for her work to date. I hope that she will be able to complete it on the same lines, to ensure that, at the end of the process, we who have never previously had any help can put in our bids.

Mrs. Janet Dean: Hon. Members have concentrated on their own areas, whether urban or rural, and I shall be no exception. Burton upon Trent, the largest town in my constituency, has objective 2 status, and the most northerly ward—Weaver ward—receives help under objective 5.
I wholeheartedly support the Committee's view that the new objective 2 arrangements should apply at or below ward level. It is essential that structural funds can be targeted on real need, which is often hidden in pockets of apparent affluence—unemployment and deprivation may be hidden when the statistics apply to county, district or travel-to-work areas.
Before I deal with the severity of the problem in Burton upon Trent, I shall reflect on Staffordshire as a whole. It has been said that Cornwall is an exception, but there were strong arguments that, with a population of more than 1 million, Staffordshire should have become a NUTS 2 area. The county's average GDP per head over the three years from 1993 to 1995 was 77.3 per cent., a figure that seems to be falling. Staffordshire, therefore, provides a good example of why the strict application of the 75 per cent. rule is wrong.
There is, naturally, disappointment that Staffordshire has not qualified for objective 1 status, but it is important that we look at the needs of individual areas, both urban and rural, in the county. The current state of agriculture makes it essential that every effort is made to secure structural funding for the affected areas of need. The Weaver ward in my constituency is part of the Staffordshire-Derbyshire objective 5b area, demonstrating the case that areas that are below county level or that cross administrative boundaries should continue to be eligible for such funding.
Burton upon Trent is a traditional manufacturing town best known for its brewing industry. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Burton saw high job losses in its traditional employment base of brewing, engineering, rubber, mining and energy industries. Sadly, Burton has never been included in an assisted area, although neighbouring, more affluent areas, have been included because of their travel-to-work areas. Since Burton has a free-standing travel-to-work area, it has never benefited. I hope that in the review of assisted areas, the Government will look at real need and that Burton upon Trent will be accepted for inclusion.
Although it does not benefit from assisted area status, the difficulties that face the area were recognised and objective 2 status was awarded for the 1994–99 period. That, together with money from the single regeneration budget granted for the inner wards of the town, has helped regeneration to begin. For example, we are proud of the Centre of Productivity and Efficiency that is designed to help business, both locally and regionally, to develop. There is a great need for the good work that has already started to be allowed to continue.
Burton upon Trent continues to have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the west midlands. The current level is 7.4 per cent. However, the unemployment rate in


a number of inner wards is still in excess of 10 per cent. Burton has a higher rate of long-term unemployment than the rest of Staffordshire, with 21.4 per cent of all the unemployed having been out of work for over a year.
Industrial employment in the area has fallen by one third from 1984 to 1995, but the percentage of the work force employed in industry remains well in excess of the United Kingdom average. Therefore, there are concerns that there may be a continuing fall in the jobs for industrial workers. Reduction in industrial employment has been only partly matched by an increase in service jobs, many of which, as other hon. Members have said, have been part-time.
There needs to be more diversification of employment opportunities. Burton has the largest single grouping of deprived wards in Staffordshire and within the west midlands shire counties as a whole. Eight of the town's 11 wards have more deprivation than the national average. Over a quarter of households in one ward have an income of less than £5,000 a year. Just under a quarter of all school children in Burton receive free school meals. One of the most frightening indicators of deprivation is the infant mortality rate, which is three times greater than the national average. On most measures, Burton shows high levels of deprivation. A recent survey of private sector housing stock showed that 14 per cent of dwellings in Burton were unfit for habitation.
We often hear of problems in our inner cities and, of course, there is much to be done there, but there are problems in some of our inner towns such as Burton upon Trent, which are hidden by the wider statistics. Structural funds have acted as a catalyst. They have triggered investment and already created over 1,000 jobs in the Burton area. Many people have worked hard. Local government, with its partners in industry, has worked hard to regenerate the area and Burton is beginning to be transformed into an attractive place to relocate business. I must emphasise that because, when one expresses the deprivation of an area, one can sometimes give the impression that it is not a good place to live and work. I believe that Burton and the Burton constituency in East Staffordshire district is a good place, but it needs help.
In order to build on the achievements of recent years, it is essential that Burton retains its objective 2 status. Therefore, I welcome the Select Committee's report and the Government's commitment to arguing that structural funds should be targeted at the pockets of deprivation such as there are in Burton upon Trent.

Mr. David Lepper: I am grateful for the opportunity to supplement the arguments already advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about the particular needs of the Brighton and Hove area. Before I do so, I welcome the comments about simplifying the bureaucracy involved in bidding for European funds, especially in their delivery.
As my hon. Friend said, Brighton does not yet receive structural funds, but we receive funds through community initiatives—Interreg, the safer cities programme, the urban initiative, and the European structural fund. There is great rejoicing in the streets when the announcement of those funds first appears in the local press, although

probably not as great as the rejoicing in the streets of Falmouth and Camborne. However, we then face a long wait before we see any signs of the funding for the youth club or community centre, whatever it might be, and disillusionment begins to set in.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown said, we are not currently eligible for structural funds. The community initiative money has proved beneficial, but it has not helped to solve the structural problems of deprivation and unemployment in our area. I welcome the flexibility that is given to member states in deciding the criteria for the new objective 2, and I can offer my hon. Friend the Minister any number to choose from, all of which I am confident that Brighton and Hove would satisfy.
I shall not repeat points already made by my hon. Friend, but I wish to point out that we come top of the list for homelessness and numbers of rough sleepers. We have 22,500 houses in multiple occupation; Birmingham, which is four times our size, has 5,000.
High levels of unemployment have already been mentioned. In the depths of the most recent recession, in the central ward in my constituency—the Regency ward—male unemployment reached 33 per cent., and it is still in double figures. That ward will be known to any hon. Member who has visited Brighton for a conference, because it contains the conference centre. We have the third highest level of long-term unemployment outside London. Only Liverpool and Birmingham surpass us.
We have not been able to address certain structural weaknesses in our economy through the support that we have received from central Government—although that is becoming better targeted through the new deal for communities—or from European funding. More than a third of the population in the Brighton and Hove area live in wards that are among the most deprived 10 per cent. in England on the indices of local deprivation. More than a quarter of our primary and secondary school children are eligible for free school meals.
Those are some of the indications of the poverty in what many people still regard as a prosperous part of the south-east. Indeed, even in the most prosperous, suburban and leafy ward in my constituency, 25 per cent. of the households are eligible for housing benefit.
I do not wish to dwell only on the reasons why our case for the new objective 2 structural funds should be considered sympathetically, because I wish to draw attention to the potential of the Brighton and Hove area. We have high levels of unemployment, poverty and deprivation, but we also have two universities and a college of technology. Despite the image that is sometimes presented of south-coast towns as places to which people retire, more than 60 per cent. of the population of the Brighton and Hove local authority area are under 45, so we have a relatively young population.
We now need help to help ourselves to realise the potential of our area. Before I entered the House, I chaired—with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—the local Brighton and Hove regeneration partnership, which played a key role in bringing together business, the local council and the voluntary sector to address the problems that have been described tonight.
We are beginning to make progress with the aid of city challenge funding, and the town is increasingly becoming wired up. In fact, we claim to be the most wired town in


the country. We have developed an innovation centre at the university of Sussex to help new, high-tech businesses. We want to extend that centre, which has a 100 per cent. occupancy rate, but, as firms develop, they need somewhere to move to. Too many business premises in our area are old-fashioned, and do not meet the needs of modern high-tech industry. We need help to provide places in which new young industries can grow, so that they can stay in the area in which they first began to grow.
We need help to develop our transport infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) will—if he is called to speak—have more to say about the need to develop that infrastructure for our part of the coastal strip. The Brighton and Hove area also contains what is probably the largest brown-field site in the south-east of England—Shoreham harbour. The lack of central or European funding to help us to develop that area has left it undeveloped. Its huge potential for creating jobs remains unlocked.
I hope that, when the Minister receives the document that has been drawn to her attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, she will carefully consider the case it makes. I hope that she will help Brighton and Hove, and Hastings further along the coast, to help ourselves to overcome the deprivation
from which we suffer.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: When I introduce myself as the Labour Member for Hastings and Rye, the usual reaction, even from Ministers, is, "How amazing. How did you do that?" In a sense, that is a compliment, but it is also rather worrying. What people are saying is that they think of Hastings as a genteel, well-heeled, south-coast town, living off a Victorian splendour, where families flock for balmy days on the beach. It is that sort of town, when people can get there, which is another problem in itself. It is a unique town, and I am addicted to it. I have always lived there, and I go back every night, which shows how addicted I am.
However, there is another side to Hastings, and that side replicates much of what my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) have said about Brighton. They said that they would not claim, "We are more hard up than you." I, however, am going to say that Hastings is more hard up than the constituency of almost everyone who has spoken in the debate. I scanned the unemployment figures as my hon. Friends were speaking, and I have not yet found an area in which unemployment is higher than in Hastings. Our 9.6 per cent. unemployment is devastating, and it is the 87th highest level of unemployment for males in the whole country.
That is not the image that people have of Hastings. Yet we also have deprivation and poor housing. I stood outside a hotel in Hastings this morning holding up "Turning the Tide" for the press. That document contains the objectives of Hastings and Brighton, and we need the Government to take notice of it. We need extra assistance.
Perhaps it was the decades of neglect by previous Governments that made Hastings decide last year to have a Labour Member of Parliament. This year, it has for the first time decided to have a Labour council. The people of Hastings also look across the channel, believing that the town's importance in European history might be

reflected by the benefits that European Union membership could bring through structural funding. That is why the restructuring of structural funds may prove a lifeline to my constituency.
Although it is only 60 miles from London, the rail journey is close on two hours, and the road journey is often longer. Our hopes for an electrification of the Hastings-to-Ashford line were dashed when Connex failed to gain an extension of its franchise. Only a few weeks ago, we were dealt a body blow when the integrated transport review denied us the A21 improvements and the bypass which is so essential to the regeneration of our town. What other seaside town has the main road along its seafront, choking both visitors and residents alike? We must wait, and I am sure that we shall do so optimistically, for the Government to decide to go ahead with that important bypass.
In the past few weeks, the town's largest employer, Philips, closed up shop. Although it is fair to say that Philips made it clear that neither Government policy nor the strong pound determined that decision, the fact is that several hundred jobs have been lost in an already impoverished economy. Hastings now has about the highest unemployment and lowest wages in the south. Wage levels are little above half the regional average. That is a fair argument for saying that the minimum wage should have no ill effects.
The area is rich in human resources. Voluntary organisations are paramount in assisting with the problems that exist. In partnership with the statutory agencies and the commercial world, they work hard in planning economic advance. The Hastings Trust led by Christine Goldschmidt, the 1066 Enterprise spearheaded by John Cossen, and the new Labour council led by Richard Stevens, are working tirelessly and single-mindedly to bring about regeneration.
We are grateful for the help received through the assisted area status and through successive successful single regeneration budget bids. Full advantage has been taken. Indeed, assisted area status has brought some £3 million to the town since 1993, and that has locked in a further £37 million of industrial investment. The single regeneration budget has produced £14 million, which has generated £90 million from other sectors. About 1,000 jobs have been created as a consequence. Therefore, we make good use of investment. Despite all that, there remains a structural weakness in the economy, just as there is in Brighton along the coast.
The purpose of this speech is not to hold out a begging bowl. Hastings is a proud town. It is to say that poverty exists, not just in northern towns, but in southern climes such as Hastings, Brighton and elsewhere. When three of the wards in my town have household social security claimant rates of 52 per cent., 49 per cent. and 48 per cent., that is real poverty. When we hold the record for the highest number of suicides in young men in the country, that suggests that the area is close to despair. There may be a north-south divide; there is certainly a south-south divide between prosperous Surrey, which is included in our GNP figures, and impoverished Hastings and Brighton. We are the poor relations of a rich family.
Shortly, Hastings, together with Brighton and Hove, will make a joint bid, entitled "Turning the Tide", for objective 2 status. I hope that these comments will help the Minister to understand why the claims of


southern towns such as Hastings and Brighton are equally, if not more, valid than those of other parts of the country for this special status. The new urban strand within the objective 2 now gives an opportunity to aid not only areas that have faced traumatic industrial decline, but areas that have slipped into an abyss of poverty through decades of neglect. I am confident that the Government will listen to these pleas. The inhabitants of Hastings and St. Leonards must not be ragged-trousered philanthropists any longer.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Last but not least comes Lowestoft—a long-standing pocket of high unemployment and deprivation at Britain's most easterly point.
There is every sense in amalgamating objectives 5b and 2, because, under the current system, at the last round Lowestoft applied for objective 2 and ended up with 5b as the only way of meeting the overwhelming case that was presented. How can a town of 70,000 be a rural area? Strange things happen in the European Union. Of the East Anglian 5b areas, Lowestoft has the best record of submitting projects and accessing funds. However, as so many hon. Members have said this evening, the job of regeneration is far from complete, and it is essential that the designation for structural funds continues for Lowestoft.
I am pleased with the strands that have been identified for objective 2. I am pleased that fishing is still one of them. The decline in fishing was the reason why Lowestoft received 5b funding last time. If Lowestoft, as the second largest fishing port in England, with all the problems that face fishing communities, does not fit the criteria, I do not know where the criteria can apply.
I hope that the strands can be considered in combination, because Lowestoft is also an urban area facing economic and social restructuring. We have lost all our shipbuilding, our food canning factories, a coach works and a shoe factory. The oil and gas industry, which has seen us through in recent years, is now downsizing in a dramatic way. None of those industries has been replaced.
The Select Committee in its report, and the Government, oppose the Commission's proposal for consistency or coterminosity between the structural fund areas and our national assisted area status. It is right to reserve that flexibility. However, in some areas there will be a good case for coterminosity. Lowestoft and its neighbour Great Yarmouth have only five miles of countryside between them, but the previous Government awarded assisted area status to Great Yarmouth, not Lowestoft. Lowestoft but not Yarmouth was awarded European status, possibly as an admission of the mistake in not giving Lowestoft assisted area status.
Any review must take Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth together. They are of a similar size. They are close together. They are a long way from anywhere else, out on the east coast, surrounded by a rural area. They both have high, long-term, structural unemployment, much higher than the unemployment in the hinterland. They are both ports with poor transport links, and they both have involvement in the oil and gas industry. Many of the businesses are interlinked. Many businesses have a

presence in each town. People travel to work between the two communities. There has to be a single strategy for both.
We need flexibility, so that objective 2 can cover relatively small areas, as the existing objective 2 cannot. I went to Brussels and lobbied for objective 2 for Lowestoft last time. It met every criterion for objective 2 status, but it was not big enough. We were told that objective 2 had to be awarded to larger areas, and that East Anglia was considered relatively prosperous. Yet within that relatively prosperous area there are unemployment black spots, Lowestoft being the main one.
Last time, the Commission did not favour a black spots approach. It did not believe that regional assistance could be that precise or benefit specified areas. Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth are isolated from the rest of the country and any other areas that might benefit. People ask how else a town such as Lowestoft is to be helped. How are pockets of long-standing unemployment to be dealt with unless we use the structural funds to which we believe we are entitled? The report is right to argue on page 47, as the Government do, that the Commission should not take raw unemployment figures, but should consider other measures of economic difficulty.
The key statement in the report is that regeneration requires continuity. So many of us have argued tonight that we need that continuity. Lowestoft continues to need the European structural funds.
I wonder whether the Minister can take up an important point that has made life difficult in making the best of structural funds. Quite properly, when one submits a project, one has to be specific about the job outcomes. It is difficult to create jobs unless the private sector is involved, yet private sector money cannot be matched by European money. That is a problem for us when it comes to transport. We want to improve our port and our rail links. Railways and ports are almost all private. Associated British Ports is a private company. Railtrack is a private company. It is difficult for those companies to provide their money as match funding for Europe.
Because in this country transport systems, including ports, are largely privatised, we are at a disadvantage compared to other European countries, which can use structural funds for transport infrastructure improvements. We cannot reverse the privatisation, and have no plans to do so, but we need to argue in Europe that, because those privatised companies fulfil a public function—an essential transport function—when bids are put together, the money that those companies can bring to the project should be able to be matched by European funding.
I shall end on that point. I have made my plea for Lowestoft, but I hope that it will help other constituencies if we can tweak those regulations.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The Select Committee's report is extremely helpful. The subject was clearly introduced by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and it has spawned an interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said in his helpful contribution, we are all basically on the same side. We are all informing the Minister and encouraging her to go out and negotiate for Britain's interests, which include getting the largest possible chunk of resources for this country, in some recompense for imbalances elsewhere.
Of course, there were differences of emphasis, for which no apology is needed. It is right that, under our constitution, Members of Parliament have the duty to represent their constituents, to express their pride in their constituency and to explain the needs of their constituency. That was done by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and rightly so. Their speeches revealed not only some of the tensions that are bound to pass into the debate and that will have to be brokered into and through Europe, but some of the underlying concerns that serve to unify us.
I found it instructive to hear the serious speeches made by hon. Members representing constituencies on the south coast of England, those representing urban areas and those representing rural areas. The House knows that I come from a rural background. I am closely involved with Action with Communities in Rural England, and I see that as part of the debate. It would be a foolish member of any party who came to the House and boasted of having no pockets of deprivation in his constituency—to some extent, all our constituencies contain such areas. The question is how we organise their interests and balance them against each other under a principle.
It appears to me that the concern expressed by many hon. Members related as much to issues of relative deprivation and poverty in the middle of affluence as to objective measures. That concern was clearly expressed by hon. Members representing south coast constituencies, and the conditions which they described can be seen in wards in my own constituency. It is uncomfortable to live in such areas, cut off from ready access to higher education, transport links and jobs.
How do we put our concerns together into a policy, bearing in mind the fact that Europe has to change its policy under extremely severe constraints? Let us start with those constraints and with a health warning. It is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as it was by the Select Committee, that there are important constraints on the EU budget and that they are closely linked to the mounting requirement for the EU to take seriously the issue of enlargement and to finance it as it develops.
It is worth pointing out that any problems of deprivation experienced in our constituencies, wherever they may be, pale into insignificance in comparison with the real poverty and deprivation that characterise most of the countries applying for membership. If we think that some areas in this country should have objective 1 status, those countries should be objective zero. Interestingly enough, when Germany was shattered after world war two, the catch phrase used was "hour zero". That betokens a degree of hope, because, from that shattered state, Germany rebuilt itself and became a successful industrial nation.
There are constraints, which it is necessary coherently to broker and resolve. Nobody has seriously argued that we should not try to target the European funds available better. One point which was not sufficiently stressed is that not all public funding is necessarily distributed at a European level. We are discussing European structural funds, but there is the possibility of public funding from outside Europe. We can debate at another time how that should be balanced and where it should come from. The Select Committee suggested—I agree with it—that we should not use the same template for the state aids map

and the European assisted area map because we would deprive ourselves of flexibility, which is what everyone wants the Minister to secure for us.
Continuity is also important. We do not want those who have had support or who have reached different stages in developing schemes—even if they are not included in the current programme—to be cut off at the knees and suddenly to find that they have no support at all.
The final general criterion is common sense. There is no point in pushing a doctrine derived from Brussels beyond the bounds of political acceptability—that is why the concept of the safety net is so much to be welcomed—or practicability. That is why it is important that the criteria are defined reasonably flexibly. I welcome the tone of the debate and—if I may anticipate her—the Minister's readiness to take those messages aboard.
My next remarks are less congenial but need to be made. They particularly concern the rural areas of England. We welcome the fact that political support is clearly developing on all sides for the maintenance of aid for the Scottish highlands, on the analogy of northern Europe, and for Northern Ireland, for important political and objective economic reasons. However, there is a danger that there will be a significant withdrawal of support for the rural areas of England through the winding up of the separate 5b objective.
Before the change of Government, I was the Minister responsible for the agricultural portions of 5b, and I realised its ability to target precise, small-scale and wider rural problems. That was at a time when agriculture was doing relatively well. In or near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I toured the camping barns scheme. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), I went to see the work of the South-West Horticulture 2000 initiative, which was trying to bring together the wonderful production of her county and Devon. There is tension, not only because of the suggestion that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales may benefit, but because English rural areas under severe pressure may lose out. In addition, despite the hon. Lady's welcome for objective 1, which I understand, there is a danger that Cornwall and Devon, which have not traditionally worked together but were integrated in the South-West Horticulture 2000 project, may now be given separate objective statuses.

Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman is aware that, if Cornwall achieves objective 1 status, Devon would be well placed to achieve objective 2. We are working with our colleagues in Devon because we want to pull together as a peninsula. What is good for Cornwall will, in the long term, be good for Devon.

Mr. Boswell: I welcome that. I want merely to identify a potential cause of friction through differential treatment. If that can be resolved, so much the better.
We may be able to learn the lessons of flexibility and the virtues of comparatively small-scale, targeted interventions, partnerships and local initiatives. Those are important points which have been stressed by Members on all sides of the House. We hope that we can include them in the new structures and regulations.
Another point which came across strongly—I reiterate it from my own experience—is the need to streamline decision making on the one hand and bureaucracy on the


other. We had much difficulty launching 5b in the south-west. It generated a lot of ill will initially because it was very slow to get off the ground and people had to become familiar with the provision. It was complicated and, as challenge funding, was not guaranteed in the traditional manner of agricultural grants; we had to come to terms with that difference. Anything that can make the process simpler, within the bounds of accountability, is very welcome.
We wish the hon. Lady and Her Majesty's Government well in supporting British interests during the negotiations. We are fortunate in having had this constructive report and debate. However, it will be impossible to satisfy everyone—even all hon. Members—and, in fairness, I think that both the House and the Government should accept that constraint on their achievements.

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, that this has been a very good debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made contributions of an enormously high standard which have really taken the issue forward. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate for their words of encouragement. Such a united view will strengthen the Government's hand in the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Daventry and practically every hon. Member who has spoken this evening commended the Select Committee on producing an excellent report. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on the elegant and thorough way in which he presented the Select Committee's report and case. The House is indebted to the Select Committee for the way in which it has produced the report and the opportunity that it has presented to have this debate this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood outlined the importance of the structural funds and what they mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) also spoke passionately on that subject. For many people in our country, the structural funds and how they are used in their areas are a manifestation of the European Union. I am very pleased that the Committee's report broadly supports the Government's position on several key points. For example, the report refers to the need to contain the cost of the funds, the need for some flexibility for member states in selecting eligible areas under objective 2, and the treatment of sparsely populated regions in the United Kingdom.
Very importantly—this has been a theme of the debate—the report highlights the need for increased simplification, which is a key area of negotiation. We made considerable process in that direction during our presidency of the European Union. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) made that point when they spoke about the need for simplicity. It is important that the reforms should lead to fewer objectives, less bureaucracy, a broader partnership and a much

simplified system of payments. Hon. Members also referred to cohesion funding, and I agree with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
The Committee researched the report thoroughly. It took evidence from a wide selection of those with an interest in this reform, including several local representative organisations such as the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and some local partnerships. A great strength of the report is that it is so comprehensive.
I gave evidence to the Committee in May in order to set out the Government's view. The Government replied to the Select Committee report by way of a memorandum, and I want to cover a number of those points today. Since the publication of the Agenda 2000 communication in July 1997, we have said that the reform of the structural and cohesion funds must be affordable and fair to all existing and future member states, including the UK and its regions. It must deliver an outcome that is durable, sustainable and capable of applying in the next programming period and beyond that into 2006 without increasing costs unmanageably or introducing inequalities.
Affordability must be set in the context of current levels of spending and of the prospect of an enlarged union, which was a point raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. That inevitably means that, at some point, the present 15 member states must expect to sustain reductions in both coverage and
receipts.

Miss McIntosh: Given that Britain receives 9 per cent. of the structural funds and the fact that, although we are a net contributor, we are now the fourth poorest member state and have been described in one report today as bottom of the league, does the Minister accept that there should be a limit to the reduction that we are prepared to accept?

Mrs. Roche: Let me explain to the hon. Lady—I am aware of her experience in these matters—that that is why the Government are taking such a rigorous view in the negotiations. We accept that reductions will have to be made, but our position is that they will have to be on the basis of fairness to the United Kingdom. The Committee takes a very sensible view that it is probably better done sooner than later and that the programming period after 1999 should prepare member states for eventual enlargement. It also makes the important point that it must be fair. Cuts in population coverage must be proportionate across member states, everything else being relatively equal, and no member state should receive more per capita than it does now.
We agree that the Commission's proposals, which would increase funding in real terms are difficult to reconcile with other principles within the proposals such as concentrating or reducing the areas that receive funding. The Select Committee also covered such issues. That is the basis for our insistence on the structural and cohesion funds element of the budget being kept well below 0.46 per cent. of EU gross national product to avoid the possibility, pointed out quite correctly by the Select Committee, of more money for fewer people. We must absolutely avoid that outcome.
Conceivably, there could be a case for objective 1 if we had to accept a position where two thirds of the structural funds' coverage—and possibly the money—


went to objective 1 areas or if, following the Select Committee's suggestion, objective 1 was limited to the poorest 20 per cent. of regions. If it meant that the budget was reduced commensurately, that would be welcome, but we could not support a situation that led to increased intensities of support.
The Government support the Select Committee's view that strict application of the 75 per cent. GDP criterion might cause the UK some difficulties, but that is not what the Commission proposes. The draft regulations already specify some exceptions, such as ultra-peripheral regions and objective 6 sparsely populated areas whether or not they meet the 75 per cent. GDP criterion. In our view, that shows that GDP is not the only indicator of genuine need, and we need to look very carefully at the totality of objective 1 and its eligibility criteria. This is our basis for arguing, as we have done consistently, for a sparsity of population criterion to address the needs of areas such as the highland and islands. We welcome the Committee's support for them to be treated on a par with member states in a similar position, such as Finland and Sweden. We heard powerful speeches in this regard from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) and from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan).
We welcomed the Cardiff Council's commitment to assisting the peace process in Northern Ireland, particularly its recognition that the European Union
should continue to play an active part in promoting lasting peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland".
Much of the discussion this evening has been on objective 2. The Committee identified correctly the difficulties in interpreting the Commission's proposals for objective 2. Unifying the industrial, rural, urban and fisheries areas within a single objective 2 would advance the aim of simplification. That point has been made. Unfortunately, however, it could also impose complex and apparently artificial distinctions that would automatically exclude from consideration some areas of need. We are working hard to ensure that all strands are dealt with properly. The rural strand was rightly discussed by the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Daventry. The fisheries strand was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Norfolk and by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who both made important points.
In the negotiations, the Government continue to emphasise the importance of flexibility to target areas of need, even if those are concealed within relatively prosperous areas. That was a recurrent theme of this evening's debate, powerfully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean). The need for flexibility was emphasised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles, for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It is important that we make it clear that in the UK we need the flexibility to target funds where they are most needed.
I am grateful for the Committee's recognition of the value of the safety net. It limits the loss of coverage for objective 2 and 5b areas to no more than one third and is an important achievement for a number of UK areas. As we gain a better understanding of the process, the benefits of the Government's achievement in establishing the safety net will become apparent.
One of the strengths of the past few months has been the contribution of local partnerships and organisations in shaping the proposals and the negotiations. We have worked together to present a united and coherent case in Brussels. I thank all hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament and members of local authorities throughout the country who have worked so hard with me and my officials. I take this opportunity to thank all my officials too, who have worked tremendously hard in the Department and in our permanent representation in Brussels. I am grateful for all the work that they have done. The importance of delivering for the UK as a whole was pointed out by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins).
In developing UK policy and the positions for the negotiations, we have held a number of local, regional and national consultations since the publication of the Commission's proposals and have sought to reflect the views gathered along the way in the on-going discussions. I am grateful for all the participation that has taken place. We must make sure that the united front continues.
The Government agree with the Committee that bureaucracy surrounding the funds should not be a bar to access for any organisation, however small. In the negotiations to date—initially this was under the United Kingdom presidency—we have been able to secure agreement to some of the general principles that support the universally agreed aim of simplification of the funds: making them more effective and, most important, better value for money. That was an important first step in a reform proposal as radical as the one that we are discussing. We should not underestimate the scale of the task and of this particular achievement, given the divergent views across member states on the detail of the proposed negotiation.
The focus of the presidency earlier this year was primarily to simplify the administration of the funds. In this, we achieved a high level of consensus among member states. The informal meeting of EU Regional Policy Ministers in Glasgow in June achieved several important levels of agreement on a number of principles: the importance of job creation and employability and of regional competitiveness; the values of effective partnership between the Commission, national Governments and regional and local organisations, and of a clear definition of role for all of them; and the need to bring decision making as close as possible to the people it affects—that was very much a recurring theme of our debate this evening—in other words, more regional and local control over the structural funds delivery.
All of us want to protect the good name of the structural funds. We want the system to operate as democratically as possible. That is why the negotiations and discussions on simplification are so important. All those involved in the funds want to develop a less burdensome and more efficient system for their administration from the year 2000 onwards. It is clear that everybody wants to do that.
It is clear also that complex negotiations are ahead if we are to reach agreement on a fair and transparent system. A great deal more work has to be done, particularly on objective criteria, eligibility issues and finance, if we are to get the system right. There has been discussion this evening about the Community initiatives, which we know have led to some useful partnerships and have provided funds outside the objective areas. However, they have proved complicated to administer and they are not always


the best way to address strategic issues. We have supported a reduction in their numbers. The mainstream objectives should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate activities currently included under Community initiatives. At present, there is still very little detail from the Commission about the three initiatives that are proposed, but they clearly must add value to the main objectives in terms of the structural funds.
The Cardiff Council set a deadline of March 1999 for agreement to be reached in the Council on the Agenda 2000 package, which of course goes wider than the structural funds. The deadline is important. As I have said, we recognise that much work will need to be done to achieve it. We will need to make every effort to ensure that it is met.
I am grateful to the Select Committee for its work and to all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have lent their support in such a positive and constructive way. It is clear that, in the months that lie ahead, we need to continue to work together so that a strong UK voice is heard. In that way we can get the right result for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Berry: With the leave of the House, I first thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry for her comments and for the evidence that she and her officials gave to the Select Committee during its hearings. That evidence was extremely helpful and useful. I am naturally grateful, on behalf of my colleagues, for the kind remarks that all hon. Members have made about the Select Committee's report. More important have been the comments that individual Members made on specific aspects of this important issue.
In the final sentence of the first paragraph of the report, we said that the report was the Committee's first, but not necessarily its final, word on reform of the European structural funds. Whether hon. Members regard that as a promise or a threat is entirely up to them. It was a brief inquiry following concerns that arose at a meeting in Brussels this February. We may well return to the issue.
I was encouraged by the unanimity of hon. Members. It was of some significance that no one argued that his or her constituency should get less resources. All argued that there should be more, or at least the same, because of important social needs and the need for regeneration and tackling poverty. I will mull over that observation as I go home, because when there is unanimity on such an important point—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament the House shall not sit on any Friday and the provision of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Standing Order No. 12 shall apply to all such Fridays.—[Mr. Allen.]

Disabled Access

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

10 pm

Mr. Don Touhig: I welcome this debate because it is another chance to highlight the problems faced by people with a physical or learning disability. Since I became president of Caerphilly Access, I have been impressed by the commitment and innovation showed by disabled and able-bodied members determined to raise public awareness of the problems that disabled people face. Like most people, I can walk unaided and I am not impaired, but the fact is that in Wales one in six people are impaired in some way. In the United Kingdom, it is one in eight. Access for the disabled is thus a matter of considerable importance to a significant number of people.
Like many people who work with, and on behalf of, disabled people, I welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken so far, notably the setting up of the disability rights task force. Steps are being taken to create a disability rights commission; and there is the planned implementation of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 next October. However, the fact remains that many of the rights that able-bodied people enjoy and take for granted are denied to those who have an impairment.
Access to trains for those confined to wheelchairs is woefully inadequate in many parts of the country. At my nearest railway station at Pengam on the Valleys line, only one platform is suitable for wheelchair access. A disabled passenger who wanted to go to Cardiff by train would have to join the train travelling north to Rhymney and stay on it when it travelled all the way back to Cardiff. At another station on the same line, there is a ramp leading to the platform but there are steps at its top and bottom. My two examples are all too commonplace. On that line, only one station has full facilities for disabled people. The situation is unacceptable to every disabled person and it should be unacceptable to every able-bodied person.
I do not want to limit my remarks to transport, important though that is, but I want to touch on the implementation of regulations that affect buses and coaches. The time scale means that existing single-decker buses will not have to be wheelchair accessible until 2015. The date for double-deckers is 2017. If bus and coach operators are not required to make their vehicles fully wheelchair accessible sooner, the emphasis that is being placed on park-and-ride schemes will have a damaging impact on disabled people. Similarly, the proposed two-mile parking exclusion zone around the millennium dome will make the experience inaccessible to disabled people unless the transport network is fully accessible to them.
Even in our schools, disabled pupils are caused further distress by the lack of proper access. Local education authorities have a responsibility to provide facilities for disabled staff, and even for parents with physical disabilities, but astonishingly, there is no requirement to ensure that schools are properly accessible for disabled pupils.
I am told that LEAs often say that they will provide facilities for disabled pupils when the need arises, but experience often shows that when need is established, the combination of a lack of funds and a lot of red tape means that very little is done.
Rightly, the education of our children is at the core of the Government's agenda, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will use her considerable influence to ensure that no child misses out on education because of a physical impairment.
Our disabled fellow citizens have conscientiously battled for years to gain the same rights as able-bodied citizens take for granted, but they have been, and continue to be, denied that equality because of lack of access—to transport, to education, to buildings, to public parks, to open spaces and in some cases to basic services.
For example, access to a telephone box may be denied because the telephone is out of reach or the booth is too narrow for a wheelchair. Access to buildings is denied because there are too many steps, no ramps, narrow doorways or no toilet facilities suitable for disabled people. Access to democracy too—access to the vote itself—is denied because of inaccessible polling booths and lack of adequate facilities in polling stations.
The disabled groups whose members I have talked to recognise that improving access is often a technical issue, and that technical solutions and financial resources are needed to put things right. Those solutions will be achieved only if local authorities become more proactive in devising and developing policies that will improve and promote greater access.
It is because local councils are the major providers of services in the community that they must not be allowed to ignore the crucial role that they have to play. I do not suggest for one moment that councils willingly ignore the problems faced by physically disabled people and those with learning difficulties. However, because of the many demands on them, unless we in the House and as a Government place responsibilities on them by statute, we will have only piecemeal solutions, different in different parts of the country.
For that reason I argue that it should be the duty of each local authority to enter into a contract with disabled people—a form of citizens charter that will guarantee that disabled people's needs are recognised and addressed. Local authorities must work in partnership with voluntary organisations and local disability groups.
A good example of that partnership approach—indeed, a role model for others—is the access group in my borough that I have already mentioned. Caerphilly Access, which has been working on behalf of disabled people for the past 10 years, has been innovative in bringing home to planners, engineers and architects the impact that their work can have on people with a physical disability. It has encouraged able-bodied people from local authorities' highways, planning and architects departments to sit in wheelchairs and try to get from, say, a major supermarket to a local bus or railway station.
The people involved have gained first-hand experience of how to negotiate all the obstacles that disabled people alone have to contend with when they try to journey through a busy town centre. That approach has helped those who have the responsibility for designing and constructing new buildings and for maintaining and developing our infrastructure to see the impact of their decisions on someone confined to a wheelchair.
Those people now have a better understanding of some of the problems that plague disabled people every day of their lives, which the able-bodied usually do not even realise exist. More importantly, the objective of such an exercise is to ensure that access issues are taken into account by local authorities when policy decisions are made.
Caerphilly Access members regularly arrange site meetings with officials from the local council's highways department to look at such things as high kerbs, poorly installed dropped kerbs, and lamp standards set in the middle of pavements which prevent anyone in a wheelchair from passing by with safety.
Those initiatives underline the importance of partnership between voluntary groups campaigning for disabled people's rights and their local authorities. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will examine ways in which all local authorities might be required to appoint an officer working in partnership with the voluntary sector, whose brief would be to ensure that the issues vital to the quality of life of disabled people were recognised and tackled. Additionally, all councils should be required to have a mission statement setting out their vision, and making it clear that improving the quality of life for disabled people in their community is as important as providing nursery education or caring for the elderly. That mission statement would underpin a council's contract with its disabled citizens.
When I was a councillor, and chairman of my local authority's finance committee, we ensured that every report from every committee had a paragraph setting out the financial implications of every recommendation in the report. Why cannot we have exactly the same, but covering the impact of recommendations on disabled people?

Mr. Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend is making a positive and valuable contribution. I am sure that in talking about the needs of physically and learning-impaired people, he does not wish to exclude visually and hearing-impaired people, because everything he has said applies to them as well.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the major barrier that disabled people face is in the perception and awareness of other people as to their needs? Central and local government therefore have an obligation to set a good example, and my hon. Friend has cited a good case from his area. He may not be aware that I was in the United States last week, but I can assure him that a change in culture and attitude can and does happen, and that there is evidence from that country that it can be done.

Mr. Touhig: There is much that we can learn from the United States, which has been progressive and encouraging in showing the pattern that we can follow.
I have stressed the role of local councils because, most often, they are the first point of contact a disabled person turns to for help, and here a one-stop-shop approach would be welcomed. Local councils are taking part in best practice initiatives sponsored by the Government, but the needs of disabled people are being ignored in this exercise. Why are we not covering the important needs of disabled people?
One invaluable aid to identifying the problems of disabled people is the access audit. Recently an audit of every library in my borough revealed that all the fire


alarms gave an audible warning of danger, but not a visual one. That is not much use if one is deaf or has a hearing impairment. That example demonstrates that the need to improve access goes much further than simply improving the physical access to buildings. Experience has shown that many access audits conducted by local councils are often carried out in a hurry and without the person responsible possessing any relevant experience.
Following the general election, many councils carried out access audits of their polling stations, and I very much welcome that. However, there is no statutory requirement on local authorities to carry out access audits for parks, open spaces and buildings. I took my twin granddaughters to a park last Sunday. They had a wonderful time, and I enjoyed the quality time that I spent with them. However, if I had been in a wheelchair, I would not have been able to get into the park because the only access was up a large flight of steps. I hope that the Government will consider making it a duty for local authorities to carry out access audits for parks and open spaces.
I said at the outset that the Government's decision to implement part III of the Disability Discrimination Act was very welcome, but it is essential for every local authority to meet the target for 2004, when they and all other service providers will have to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their services. So far as local councils are concerned, they should be instituting a rolling programme of work to meet the deadline—they should not come up to the deadline and then try to do the work in a short period of time.
I recognise that many authorities are taking action, but many are not. Improving access is not just about removing physical barriers. The problem facing people with learning disabilities stems not from physical barriers or the absence of reasonable adjustments, but rather from an unwillingness on behalf of providers of services to treat disabled people on equal terms. Mencap told me recently that 10 adults with learning disabilities were refused admission to a pre-booked party in a pub because the landlady considered that they would constitute a breach of the fire regulations and disturb the comfort of her regular customers.
Access for people with learning disabilities depends on much more than providing ramps. In another case, a Mencap employee with a learning disability who travelled to work daily by bus found that the bus turned into a garage one morning. Passengers were asked to disembark and find their own way out. The person with the learning disability was left abandoned on the bus, feeling confused and lost.
Often people with learning difficulties need no more specialised help than a positive and enlightened attitude on the part of those working in the public sector, the service industries and, yes, from us, their fellow citizens. Access for a person with a learning disability can be improved in a number of relatively straightforward ways. For example, transport can be made more accessible, not merely for the disabled but also for the elderly, by the use of large-print timetables, clearer signs at stations and bus stops, and clearer spoken announcements. Too often, a person with a learning disability will be confused by a sign reading, "Please use another route", when it should read, "Please use another bus". If service providers—

in short, staff—receive the necessary training to enable them to respond to a person's specific needs, significant strides will be made towards improving access.
In health care, we must guarantee that a learning disability will not be a barrier. Worryingly, Mencap's recent report "Health for All" revealed that health authority inequality is very much a reality for people with learning difficulties. Despite the high incidence of hearing and visual impairment, Mencap's survey showed that few of them have regular hearing and eye tests. To access the health service, people with learning disabilities need information that they can understand and services that can understand them—in terms of knowing how to communicate and being able to work in a way that accommodates the extra time that it might take to deal with the problems of a person with a learning disability.
We must ensure that people with learning disabilities do not miss out, by providing health promotion information that they can understand. All our citizens must be given the chance to make the most of their lives. The new deal for the disabled is a good example of how partnership between Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector can significantly help to break down barriers to employment for disabled people.
Members of Parliament have a duty to enable all people with impairments to take a full and active part in their communities and in society as a whole. Only by removing the barriers that restrict access, both physical and conditional, can we make equality of opportunity not merely a dream for people with disabilities, but a reality.
In this House, we are privileged. We can make things happen. We have an opportunity to help to build a Britain in which all our people feel equally valued, involved and included, instead of ignored, isolated and excluded. For me, that is the true meaning of inclusivity.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on securing this debate on a topic that is not only of particular importance but that, as his contribution illustrated, is so wide ranging, affecting every aspect of our national life. I also thank him for his generosity in affording our hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) an opportunity to contribute to the debate. This Government are committed to achieving comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people in both the workplace and society at large.
In October 1997, we announced our strategy. First, we set up the disability rights task force to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people and to make recommendations on the role and functions of a disability rights commission—a major strand in our strategy. The task force, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, is due to report on its wider considerations no later than July 1999 and submitted its recommendations on the commission before Easter. We hope to legislate for the establishment of a DRC at an early opportunity. Finally, we announced our commitment to implement fully part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which deals with rights of access to goods and services.
Since 2 December 1995, part III has placed duties on those providing goods, facilities and services—defined as "service providers"—not to discriminate against disabled


people. From 1 October 1999, service providers will be required to make reasonable adjustments to policies, procedures or practices that exclude disabled people and to provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate access. From 2004, where there is a physical barrier to service, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid it.
On 30 July, the Department for Education and Employment, which leads in this area, launched a public consultation covering new requirements to make goods, services and facilities more accessible to disabled people. Access to transport is not only a civil rights issue, but a matter of social justice. We want high-quality transport designed for everyone—that means transport that is not only affordable but accessible.
A recent audit carried out by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation on disabled people's perception of the Government's achievements had transport ranked very high in the list of priorities. It is, of course, a priority for us all—our daily lives depend so much on our ability to get from place to place.
Some improvements—which have been based on research carried out by my Department and advocated by our statutory advisers, the disabled persons transport advisory committee—have already been made, including the introduction of low-floor buses, which offer step-free access. Many of those buses also have facilities for wheelchair users. All inter-city trains are accessible to wheelchair users, and many other services are now able to offer that facility. Accessible taxis, too, are more generally available, particularly in the larger towns and cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn was concerned about access to the millennium dome site. I reassure him that there will be dedicated parking spaces for orange badge holders. Indeed, the Jubilee line extension, which we expect to carry the bulk of visitors, will be fully accessible.
We have the opportunity with the Disability Discrimination Act to create a fully accessible public transport system that will significantly improve the independent mobility of millions of disabled people. Specific technical standards will be set in regulations covering buses, coaches, trains—including underground, light rail and tramways—and licensed taxis. The technical standards will include means to travel in a wheelchair and facilities for those with low vision, hearing impairment, walking difficulties, poor balance and so on. I have been privileged to witness several innovative schemes that deal with the problems that people with learning difficulties frequently experience in their attempts to use public transport.
Discussions with DPTAC and relevant transport industries have developed the framework for the regulations. Consultation documents on our draft proposals for taxis, buses and coaches were circulated for wide public consultation last year. They included detailed technical standards and proposed implementation dates. For full-size single-deck buses, we proposed a start date of 1 January 2000, with an end date of 1 January 2015 for all such vehicles to meet the requirements. On taxis, we consulted on the basis of a start date of 1 January 2002 and an end date of 1 January 2012. For double-deck buses, we proposed a start date of 2002 and an end date of 2017,

but I am happy to inform the House that the industry has told us that all new double-deck buses may meet the requirements by 2001.
The next stage for buses and coaches, as for taxis, will be to draw up draft regulations and carry out a further round of public consultation before the final regulations are introduced. An implementation date of 31 December 1998 for all rail vehicles was written into the primary legislation, but it became clear when we came into government that the consultation process would have to be accelerated if we were to provide industry with sufficient time to meet the requirements.
Consultation on draft regulations was carried out in the late spring of this year and the final regulations have been laid before Parliament. Subject to completion of the parliamentary procedures, the regulations will come into force on 1 November.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn pointed out, accessibility is not only about having the right vehicle. We must also ensure that the whole journey is seamless, which means that the infrastructure must be right. The provisions of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, which deals with access to goods, services and facilities, will apply to railway and bus stations as to any other building to which the public have access.
In the meantime, we will be issuing guidance to transport operators and local authorities on the steps that they should be taking now—in advance of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—to examine every aspect of their service provision. That also includes pavements, roads and so on and I hope that my hon. Friend will take some reassurance from that.
My hon. Friend also touched on the issue of access to buildings. That is dealt with by part M of the building regulations, "Access and Facilities for Disabled People", which covers new buildings and extensions including a ground floor. At present, part M covers non-domestic buildings, but later this month regulations will be laid before the House extending the requirements to all new housing.
The statutory requirements require reasonable provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to and to be able to use the building. The provisions cover facilities for people with mobility difficulties, sight and hearing difficulties, areas to which both my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for High Peak referred. Guidance on how the requirements may be met are set out in an approved document. This guidance is not prescriptive and alternative ways of satisfying the statutory requirements may also be acceptable.
The extension to new housing will require access to the principal entrance storey of the dwelling, movement within the principal living storey, and accessible toilet facilities. The object of these requirements is to enable disabled people to visit the homes of friends and relatives and to enable older people to remain in their own homes longer. The requirements do not expect to provide full living conditions for disabled people as these will vary according to the nature of the disability. The approved document for part M will be republished in early November. Separate guidance is also being prepared on how to meet the technical aspects of providing an accessible threshold to the entrance of new dwellings.
The requirements for access to new housing will take effect 12 months after the laying of the regulations, affording time for housebuilders to adjust to the new requirements.
Part M of the building regulations does not apply to existing buildings, but the duties on employers and service providers in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 require reasonable steps to be taken to remove physical obstacles to access. Those duties already apply in the case of employers and will apply to service providers from 2004.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn referred to access audits. They are one way in which employers and service providers may assess what alterations may be required to their premises. There is no statutory obligation to carry out such audits, nor do we believe it reasonable to impose one. We believe that access audits are best advocated as good practice. Both the Access Committee for England and the Centre for Accessible Environments offer guidance on how such audits may be carried out, and the Centre for Accessible Environments has a panel of experts for carrying out such work.
I am sure that we all agree that, regrettably, this is still a developing scene. The form that an audit takes needs to be tailored to the particular circumstances of each case

and building. A broad-brush statutory requirement for such audits could well be, in the present emerging state of the art, a charter for cowboy practices in an area where it is overwhelmingly important to establish confidence in the credibility and realism of such audits and those who perform them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn pointed out, most local authorities have appointed an access officer and there is an Access Officers Association which affords support for its members. However, it is possible to combine that role with other duties, normally within the building control or planning departments. We believe that this matter should be left to the discretion of individual local authorities.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friends that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that disabled people do not face discrimination in accessing employment, housing, transport and the built environment. We have already made progress towards that and the plans that I have outlined this evening will take us further towards that goal, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn pointed out, will be achieved only be everyone working in the closest and most detailed, sympathetic and sensitive of partnerships.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.